[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 87 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6341-H6389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment because we are 
not exactly sure what the effect of it would be. Basically these cuts 
come from operation and maintenance for all the services. We have made 
substantial efforts to substantially improve quality of life for the 
people who serve us in the military.
  Mr. Chairman, having just been handed a different copy of the 
amendment, let me ask the question, is this one not operational now?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman to answer the question. We 
are not sure what amendment is pending. It is difficult to get these 
amendments at the last minute and not know exactly what the effect 
might be. We have been very careful in crafting the bill to pretty much 
know what the effect of what we did might be.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. 
Furse], to give us some assurance that her amendment is not directed at 
operation and maintenance for the services that would affect barracks 
repair, for example, or quality of life issues, education, things of 
this nature.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, it would help the Department of Defense 
transportation system operate more efficiently. It would be just 
directly at that efficiency of operation for U.S. Transcom.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, just to make sure that we 
understand, the paper that I was given originally as the gentlewoman's 
amendment that did relate to operations and maintenance, that is not 
the operational amendment that we are dealing with now?
  Mr. FURSE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I apologize that I caused 
that confusion. I thank the gentleman for his patience with me.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we are willing to accept this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  The amendment was agreed to.


               amendment offered by mr. young of florida

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 396, 
noes 25, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 239]

                               AYES--396

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     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
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock

[[Page H6342]]


     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--25

     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bishop
     Clyburn
     DeLauro
     Everett
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     McIntosh
     Meek
     Montgomery
     Pickett
     Reed
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bilbray
     Bonior
     Callahan
     Ewing
     Forbes
     Gillmor
     Hayes
     Houghton
     Lincoln
     Lowey
     McDade
     Moran
     Schumer

                              {time}  1459

  Messrs. BARTLETT of Maryland, PICKETT, and EVERETT changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Mr. YATES changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 239 on H.R. 3610 
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''

                               TITLE III

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $1,308,709,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1999.

                       Missile Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $1,044,767,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1999: Provided, That of the funds appropriated 
     in this paragraph, $16,938,000 shall not be obligated or 
     expended until authorized by law.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including 
     ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes; $1,500,414,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 1999: Provided, That of the 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph, $175,600,000 shall not 
     be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chairman of the committee. 
Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the chairman, the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], in a colloquy of importance to my 
district and to the Nation as a whole.
  I would say to the chairman of the committee, it had been my 
intention to come before the Subcommittee on National Security, which 
the gentleman chairs, to ask for his support of an environmental 
restoration database center at the Superfund site of the former Olmsted 
Air Force base, now the Harrisburg International Airport, which is in 
my congressional district in Pennsylvania. However, knowing that the 
committee's preference was to proceed without such amendments, I have 
instead come to the floor of the House to discuss my concerns about the 
database center.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for yielding to me.
  I have read the information the gentleman has provided to me about 
the need for the database center at the Harrisburg International 
Airport. We see merit with the gentleman's conclusions that such a 
database center is, in fact, necessary for the continued environmental 
restoration of the former Olmstead Air Force Base and that the Air 
Force should fund such a database center.
  Mr. GEKAS. I thank the chairman. In fact, for a sum of $123,000 over 
5 years, the Pennsylvania State Data Center has proposed to 
professionally manage and maintain the mountains of Superfund data that 
have been collected. I doubt that a better choice could be made, since 
this is the only data center for the entire Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania, and is also located adjacent to the said Harrisburg 
International Airport.
  I pledge to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
National Security that I will report to him regularly on the progress 
we are making with the Air Force on this matter, as this appropriation 
bill makes it way to conference.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and 
will look forward to the gentleman keeping the committee informed.

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, as previously discussed with Subcommittee 
Chairman Young of Florida, I had intended to offer an amendment to 
title II, Air Force Operation and Maintenance, of H.R. 3610, the fiscal 
year 1997 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. My amendment would 
have addressed Air Force funding for the operation and maintenance of 
an environmental restoration database center on the site of the former 
Olmsted Air Force Base, a current Superfund site in Middletown, PA.
  The Air Force, which has been fully funded by past Congresses to 
complete the environmental restoration of the former Olmsted Air

[[Page H6343]]

Force Base--now the Harrisburg International Airport and other 
properties--refuses to fund a site database center. The center, which 
would serve as the final step in the site's complete restoration and 
deletion from the Superfund list, would incorporate data from all 
current and future environmental investigations. There are two options 
available to the Congress: either compel the Air Force to use the funds 
it has already been appropriated, or obtain an additional 
appropriation.
  The Harrisburg International Airport [HIA] located in Middletown, PA, 
near the State capital of Harrisburg, is situated on the immediate and 
surrounding grounds of the former Olmsted Air Force Base. The former 
Air Force base is now a 1984-designated Environmental Protection Agency 
Superfund site--referred to as the Middletown Airfield Site. The site's 
existence is due directly to the activities that took place during the 
operation of Olmsted Air Force Base from 1917 to 1967. For the last 13 
years, an intense effort has been undertaken at the local, State and 
Federal level to determine the nature of the hazardous waste left by 
the Air Force when it closed Olmsted, the origins and locations of its 
spread, and the proper remediation of the waste, all within the 
dictates of the EPA Superfund designation and with the goal of getting 
HIA deleted off the Superfund list by the end of this year.
  I have been involved with the HIA/Olmsted waste site since 1983 when 
it was thought that its inclusion on the Superfund list would be the 
fastest, cheapest and best way to clean up the waste left by the Air 
Force. In the years since HIA was put on the Superfund list, the Air 
Force, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania--
the current owner of the land--local, regional and private entities, 
our late U.S. Senator John Heinz, former Senator Wofford, current 
Senators Specter and Santorum, Congressmen Murtha, McDade, Goodling, 
Walker, and this Member of Congress--along with many others too 
numerous to mention at this time--have sought to make the efforts at 
HIA a model site cleanup program for emulation by other formerly used 
defense sites [FUDS] across the United States.
  As part of the cleanup effort, adequate funds were dedicated in 
several Defense Appropriations bills to provide for a full cleanup of 
the site. At this moment it is doubtful that all those funds have been 
expended. All parties have understood that full cleanup meant that 
follow up Superfund delisting the land in question would be available 
for public and private development.

  Throughout the cleanup process, a huge amount of data has been 
collected from the several public and private environmental 
investigations conducted. A crucial part of the current EPA-mandated 
delisting effort--and any post-delisting development that occurs--is 
the continued interpretation and management of this data. Remediation 
could not occur under Superfund without the requisite interpretations 
of site data. Personnel at the Harrisburg International Airport and 
post-Superfund developers must be able to determine what happened on 
the site, and any future environmental questions that arise at HIA must 
refer back to the data from the current cleanup effort. When all the 
current participants have left the site, the only reliable reference 
source will be a database.
  If new contamination is discovered at HIA in the future, the current 
data will be consulted to determine how to respond. In fact, if any new 
contamination is found and determined to be from the same source--
Olmsted--as was the previous contamination, the Air Force may be called 
back to conduct new remediation efforts. Or, in a worst case scenario, 
on-site personnel from the airport and localities might have to make 
quick decisions about how to deal with an emergency situation. To 
adequately and accurately do this will require a fully functioning and 
accessible site database. If no database is centrally maintained after 
HIA Superfund delisting--that is, after the Air Force discontinues its 
work--the new remediation efforts will be much more difficult, much 
more costly, and take much longer to accomplish, and any emergency 
response effort may be critically flawed by the lack of necessary data.
  But, unfortunately, as we near the end of the long march to 
delisting, the issue of who will fund and maintain this database has 
arisen as a very serious bar to post-cleanup development. The Air 
Force, through the Army Corps of Engineers, refuses to either maintain 
or pay for the maintenance of a site database. The Air Force is wrong 
in their refusal. From the very beginning, in the many meetings with 
various Assistant and Under Secretaries of Defense regarding HIA, it 
was fully understood that post-Superfund site maintenance would include 
a managed database and appropriations were made with the database in 
mind.
  The ``Report of the Defense Environmental Response Task Force'' of 
October, 1991, submitted by then-Chairman Thomas E. Baca, recommended 
that ``* * * adequate resources [be] available * * * for environmental 
restoration and oversight at closing bases.''
  As recently as this year, the Department of Defense stated its 
support for the type of post-remediation followup the HIA database 
would allow. A February 22, 1996 letter from Sherri W. Goodman, Deputy 
Under Secretary of Defense--Environmental Security--cites her support 
for the annual report to Congress of the Defense Environmental Response 
Task Force [DERTF], which she chairs: ``The purpose of the DERTF is to 
study and provide findings and recommendations for expediting and 
improving environmental response actions at military installations 
being closed or realigned.'' Further, section 3.3 of the DERTF report 
states: ``Effective measures must be in place before transfer of 
property to ensure adequate protection of human health and the 
environment.'' And, in the same report, section 3.4--Liability For 
Subsequent Response Actions: ``However, further cleanup may be required 
if the land use changes and the original remedy, although protective 
for the anticipated land use, is not fully protective under the new 
land use.''

  And, finally, and most importantly, I offer excerpts from the April, 
1996, ``Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental 
Restoration Dialogue Committee,'' which is an EPA advisory committee 
whose participants include the Department of Defense. In its report, 
the committee notes the importance of the role of local governments in 
Federal facility environmental restoration, stating that ``local 
governments very often serve as first responders in emergency response 
situations.'' In discussing the role of the Federal Government in the 
Federal facility cleanup process, the committee states that policies 
should include:
  ``The identification and characterization of contamination and the 
evaluation of health impacts on human populations are essential parts 
of the cleanup process.''
  ``* * * provid[ing] access to resources, information, and training so 
all stakeholders are able to participate in decision making.''
  ``Designating locations for access to information appropriate and 
convenient for the affected communities.* * *''
  ``* * * funding of preventative pollution control activities should 
be viewed as a cost of doing business and funded in conjunction with 
the activity causing the problem.''
  Mr. Chairman, how can the Department of Defense, in publication after 
publication, express a need for and responsibility of site maintenance 
in the future and then deny such maintenance as is proposed with the 
site database for Harrisburg International Airport? And, further, the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has offered the Pennsylvania State Data 
Center, located next to HIA, to manage and maintain the HIA site 
database for 5 years for under $123,000. The State data center is a 
public entity, a professional data center, and an on-site location 
which has offered to manage a database for a very reasonable cost.
  The phrase ``penny wise, pound foolish'' seems appropriate here.
  The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is on record in complete support of 
the database center, especially as it impacts the Harrisburg 
International Airport. In a recent letter to Senator Rick Santorum, 
Elizabeth Sarge Voras, Deputy Secretary for Aviation, states;

       The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania considers this matter to 
     be of paramount importance in meeting the airport's 
     operational, preventive maintenance and repair, health and 
     safety, and developmental requirements.

  The facts are these: I believe the Department of Defense made a 
commitment to this and other Members of Congress and the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania to manage and maintain a post-cleanup database; the 
Department of Defense has stated in a report to Congress this year its 
commitment to post-cleanup development and database management at its 
waste sites; and, the Pennsylvania State Data Center has offered the 
best database management service at the best location for the best 
price. Mr. Chairman, based on the simple facts, I believe that the 
Committee on Appropriations may want to take action in the future to 
persuade the Department of Defense to fund this site database. We hope 
that the Department of Defense--and specifically the Air Force and 
Corps of Engineers--will see that the Pennsylvania State Data Center is 
the best way to proceed and will make available funds for the database 
from the appropriations it has already been given by the Congress.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854, title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-

[[Page H6344]]

     owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes; $1,150,128,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 1999.

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of vehicles, including tactical, support, and nontracked 
     combat vehicles; the purchase of not to exceed 14 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; communications and 
     electronic equipment; other support equipment; spare parts, 
     ordnance, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and 
     training devices; expansion of public and private plants, 
     including the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing 
     purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be 
     acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes; $2,899,040,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 1999: Provided, That of the 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph, $86,800,000 shall not 
     be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may 
     be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; $6,896,552,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 1999: Provided, That of 
     the funds appropriated in this paragraph, $227,600,000 shall 
     not be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and 
     related support equipment including spare parts, and 
     accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants, 
     including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and 
     procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and 
     Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; 
     $1,384,408,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1999: Provided, That in addition to the 
     foregoing purposes, the funds appropriated above under this 
     heading shall be available to liquidate reported deficiencies 
     in appropriations provided under this heading in prior 
     Department of Defense appropriations acts, to the extent such 
     deficiencies cannot otherwise be liquidated pursuant to 31 
     U.S.C. 1553(b): Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph, $79,100,000 shall not be 
     obligated or expended until authorized by law.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854, title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $341,689,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1999.

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

       For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, 
     or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including 
     armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools and installation thereof in public and private 
     plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned 
     equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long leadtime 
     components and designs for vessels to be constructed or 
     converted in the future; and expansion of public and private 
     plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     $4,719,930,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2001: Provided, That additional obligations may 
     be incurred after September 30, 2001, for engineering 
     services, tests, evaluations, and other such budgeted work 
     that must be performed in the final stage of ship 
     construction: Provided further, That none of the funds herein 
     provided for the construction or conversion of any naval 
     vessel to be constructed in shipyards in the United States 
     shall be expended in foreign facilities for the construction 
     of major components of such vessel: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds herein provided shall be used for the 
     construction of any naval vessel in foreign shipyards.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For procurement, production, and modernization of support 
     equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy 
     ordnance (except ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, 
     new ships, and ships authorized for conversion); expansion of 
     public and private plants, including the land necessary 
     therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may be 
     acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; $2,889,591,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 1999: Provided, That of 
     the funds appropriated in this paragraph, $18,096,000 shall 
     not be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture, 
     and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment, 
     appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in 
     public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine 
     Corps, including the purchase of not to exceed 88 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; and expansion of public 
     and private plants, including land necessary therefor, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     $623,973,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1999: Provided, That of the funds appropriated 
     in this paragraph, $77,225,000 shall not be obligated or 
     expended until authorized by law.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of aircraft 
     and equipment, including armor and armament, specialized 
     ground handling equipment, and training devices, spare parts, 
     and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; expansion of 
     public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things; 
     $7,326,628,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1999: Provided, That of the funds appropriated 
     in this paragraph, $54,470,000 shall not be obligated or 
     expended until authorized by law.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of 
     missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment, 
     including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground 
     handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public 
     and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interest therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes including 
     rents and transportation of things; $2,279,500,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 1999.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854, title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $272,177,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1999.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For procurement and modification of equipment (including 
     ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground 
     electronic and communication equipment), and supplies, 
     materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided 
     for; the purchase of not to exceed 506 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only; the purchase of 1 vehicle 
     required for physical security of personnel, notwithstanding 
     price limitations applicable to passenger vehicles but not to 
     exceed $287,000 per vehicle; and expansion of public and 
     private plants, Government-owned equipment and installation 
     thereof in such plants, erection of structures, and 
     acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon, prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; $6,078,539,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 1999.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments) necessary 
     for procurement, production, and modification of equipment, 
     supplies, materials, and spare parts

[[Page H6345]]

     therefor, not otherwise provided for; the purchase of not to 
     exceed 389 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; the 
     purchase of 2 vehicles required for physical security of 
     personnel, notwithstanding price limitations applicable to 
     passenger vehicles, but not to exceed $200,000 per 
     vehicle; expansion of public and private plants, 
     equipment, and installation thereof in such plants, 
     erection of structures, and acquisition of land for the 
     foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior 
     to approval of title; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; $2,247,812,000, to 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 1999: 
     Provided, That of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph, $357,600,000 shall not be obligated or expended 
     until authorized by law.

                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment

       For procurement of aircraft, missiles, tracked combat 
     vehicles, ammunition, other weapons, and other procurement 
     for the reserve components of the Armed Forces; $908,000,000, 
     to remain available for obligation until September 30, 1999: 
     Provided, That the Chiefs of the Reserve and National Guard 
     components shall, not later than 30 days after the enactment 
     of this Act, individually submit to the congressional defense 
     committees the modernization priority assessment for their 
     respective Reserve or National Guard component: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, 
     $103,000,000 shall not be obligated or expended until 
     authorized by law.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of title III 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 gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

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

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Obey: Page 22, line 6, 
     after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $404,000,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with the end of the cold war, the Navy 
acknowledges that they have no military requirement for an additional 
nuclear attack submarine. At the present time we are cutting up dozens 
of submarines, including a number of Los Angeles class submarines, but 
the Navy nonetheless decided that they were going to proceed to spend 
billions of dollars to build a new attack submarine because they wanted 
to maintain the industrial base.
  That is not a bad reason. I do not argue with that. But the fact is 
that from there on, what the Pentagon wanted to do has been sidetracked 
by the Congress and by the authorizing committee. DOD essentially 
wanted to build two submarines. They paid for one last year. They 
wanted to do another one, not this year but the coming year after this, 
but the committee instead decided what they wanted them to do is to 
build four different prototype submarines.
  End result: We are going to be spending $4 billion more than the 
Pentagon wanted us to spend to determine what kind of attack submarines 
we ought to be building in the future. My amendment simply removes $404 
million to eliminate the congressional expansion of what was originally 
a limited Department of Defense decision in terms of proceeding with 
the construction of attack submarines.
  Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no reason why we are building more 
than two submarines except pork. The only reason is that we have a 
competition between a number of shipyards, Connecticut and Virginia 
being the two in question here, and as a result, we are going to wind 
up keeping both happy at an additional cost of $4 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, when this bill is done today, we are going to go over 
to the Rayburn Building and we are going to be voting on the Labor, 
Health, Education bill that requires us to squeeze education, squeeze 
student loans, squeeze job training, squeeze social services, and yet 
we are buying into, in this bill, the idea that we ought to proceed 
with this expanded acquisition of attack submarines. That does not make 
any financial sense, it does not make military sense; it may make a lot 
of political sense for the people involved in the decision, but it is a 
cockamamie way to go about meeting a threat that does not even exist.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that is all there is to the argument. 
People will know where they are going to come from. I do not see any 
reason to take more time. I would simply urge the Members, if they are 
interested in meeting the requirement laid down by DOD, rather than 
meeting the political requirement laid down by the Congress, they will 
save $404 million by voting for this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the vote we have just had already reduced this 
submarine line by $100 million. Without going into a lot of detail why 
we need the new submarines, the old submarines are getting older and 
older. The fact is that the Navy had planned to build 30 of these new 
attack submarines and do them at one yard. We believe that the idea of 
building all of the submarines in one yard is not good for the 
taxpayer. We believe that competition is the smart way to go in dealing 
with large military procurement programs. The program in this bill 
provides for competition. If we do not have the competition, it is 
going to cost us a lot more per submarine as we get into the future.
  I would just give one big example. A few years back we were having a 
major battle over aircraft jet engines. One supplier, one manufacturer, 
was making basically all of the jet aircraft engines.
  We decided to go into competition and we ended up with a strong 
competition between two aircraft jet engine builders, and we got a 
better engine for less money. The same thing will happy to the 
submarines. So let us defeat this amendment. Let us continue the 
program as we have worked it out in the committee and with the 
administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to understand that this 
amendment undoes the agreement that was struck last year, not just here 
in the Congress, but between the Congress, the administration, the 
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Chief of Naval 
Operations of the Navy. This completely undermines that agreement, 
which would have the future submarine construction program of America 
developed in two shipyards with a competition for a series of the later 
attack submarines following the procurement of the first four. This 
totally undoes that.
  The gentleman speaks in terms of the economy of having all submarines 
constructed in one shipyard. There is a lot of logic to that, but his 
amendment flies in the teeth of the logic by basically consigning all 
future submarine construction to the yard which would be the most 
expensive yard in which to build. Every expert, everyone in the Navy, 
has conceded that if we are going to have but one yard to build 
submarines, it could be built more economically in Newport News, where 
there is no overhead of other naval ship construction and commercial 
shipbuilding to spread the cost, whereas at the other remaining yard 
capable of building a nuclear attack submarine, all of the overhead is 
attributable just to the submarines.
  The amendment makes no sense in terms of a single purpose yard. It 
makes no sense in terms of we in the Government mandating where future 
submarines will be built, rather than having them built where 
competition says they can be built at the most economical basis for the 
taxpayers of America. Heaven only knows, we need the submarines.
  The Secretary of the Navy wrote us, saying that funding for this 
submarine that he was eliminating was the highest priority for the 
Navy. The Secretary of the Navy said the same thing. The Secretary of 
Defense reaffirmed his support for last year's agreement. Let us not 
undo it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was offered in the 
Committee on Appropriations and it was defeated on a very strong 
bipartisan vote of 35 against, 12 for. I hope the ratio is equally 
strong here. I ask

[[Page H6346]]

the Members to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and 
ask for a vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments to title III?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3610 the fiscal year 1997 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act. I ask my colleagues to join 
me in supporting this bill, which provides the bare minimum to keep the 
peace and ensure that America's military remains second to none.
  I am troubled that some fail to recognize that the only guarantee of 
peace is a strong America. Those who would disarm, those who would 
further downsize the military fail to understand the basic concept of 
cause and effect. Like most dreamers they steadfastedly refuse to cloud 
their crystal clear vision with reality. Others argue we can't afford 
our military. They argue that America cannot continue to spend funds on 
our defense. This view is as dangerous as it is irresponsible.
  But don't take my word for it. Walk across the street. Go to the 
Library of Congress. Pick up any history book and read about the past. 
I ask the dreamers to read about Nazi Germany's respect for their 
disarmament treaties; read about imperial Japan's respect for other's 
independence. Read this before you vote. I ask the penny pinchers to 
read about how unprepared America and democracies were. To read about 
how small our military was, to think about what kind of world we would 
live in today if that decade's penny pinchers had won their argument 
and stopped the modernization of the R.A.F. I shudder to think who 
would have won the Battle of Britain and ultimately the war in Europe 
if they had won that debate. These are the facts, it's history, it's 
there in black and white for each and every one of you to read.
  I am disturbed that some of you ignore these experiences saying 
that's old news. History is for the past and mankind is different 
today. My friends you are playing with fire. Remember we have a sacred 
responsibility to uphold the Constitution and defend our Nation. If you 
remain unconvinced take a few minutes and go to Arlington National 
Cemetery. Listen to those who speak so articulately in their silence. 
Remember their sacrifices and remember your responsibility to those who 
are following in their footsteps by serving America and defending 
freedom. Then stop and visit the Archives. Look at our Declaration of 
Independence and our glorious Constitution and remember your 
responsibility. These are not mere pieces of papers. These are the 
heart and soul of what America is.
  As Americans we can make only one choice if we are to remain true to 
those heroes who fell defending our freedom. Our only choice is to vote 
for this bill. A ``no'' vote betrays those who have made the ultimate 
sacrifice. A ``no'' vote jeopardizes the freedoms we hold so dear. A 
``no'' vote is wrong for America. My friends as we vote today under the 
watchful gaze of our first Commander in Chief--our greatest leader--
George Washington--be true to his legacy--be true to America--and vote 
``yes'' for this Defense appropriations bill.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] numbered 20 may be 
considered as the Smith-Sanders amendment at this point, 
notwithstanding it addresses a portion of the bill not yet read, 
because one of the Members cannot be on the floor later on.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
do so to inquire of the gentleman if this is amendment No. 20 as 
printed on page 6287 of the Congressional Record of June 12?
  Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, that is 
correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.


              amendment offered by mr. smith of new jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Page 
     87, after line 3, insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense under this Act may be obligated or expended to pay a 
     contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense 
     for any costs incurred by the contractor when it is made 
     known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or 
     expend such funds that such costs are restructuring costs 
     associated with a business combination that were incurred on 
     or after August 15, 1994.

  Mr. MURTHA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and 
colleague from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for his cooperation in working on 
this amendment. We have been working on this for some time now.
  Mr. Chairman, if you thought taxpayers were outraged and dismayed 
over the revelation that the Pentagon was shelling out $500 for hammers 
and $600 for toilet seats, wait until they learn that Uncle Sam is now 
subsidizing big corporate mergers and acquisitions, which by design, 
are intended to throw thousands of people out of work.
  That's right, American taxpayers are footing the bill to merge, 
downsize, and fire people. This is corporate welfare at it worst.
  Wait until the public discovers, Mr. Chairman, that thousands of 
hard-working Americans who have or recently had high paying defense 
industry jobs, got pink slips not necessarily because of fewer purchase 
orders, but because the Clinton administration's cynical policy of 
providing huge subsidies for corporate mergers.
  In July 1994, the GAO's first and only available report on just one 
subsidy approved for payment makes clear a connection between payoffs 
and layoffs: ``The contractor's proposed savings were based entirely on 
workforce reductions.'' (GAO/NSIAD-96-80)
  The amendment I am offering today, which is cosponsored by Messrs. 
Sanders, Duncan, Minge, DeFazio, Klug, and Neumann, puts a stop to this 
outrageous and largely obscure policy of subsidized downsizing until 
Congress and the taxpayers receive some reliable data on how much has 
been spent and what the human and budgetary impact of these subsidies 
are.

  Make no mistake: Nobody is trying to interfere with legitimate 
private business decisions to merge. Of course, the establishment of 
monopolies is a different story. And nobody denies that leaner defense 
firms have the potential to save DOD some money on future cost-plus 
contracts.
  But when Uncle Sam crosses the line between simply permitting 
mergers, and actively promoting and partially underwriting them, we 
have strayed.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment will end this fatally flawed policy from 
inflicting any more damage that has already been done.
  The Smith-Sanders-Duncan-Minge-DeFazio-Klug-Neumann amendment is 
based on common sense--because the proponents of the Clinton policy 
have not proven their case--they have not even performed the duties 
that they were required by law to do.

[[Page H6347]]

  Amazingly, the report by DoD called for in section 818 of Public Law 
103-337 has still not been released, even though it was to be available 
by November 1995. This report was at the heart of congressional demands 
for accountability over these merger subsidies.
  And when the hard data becomes available, it may show that the 
Clinton policy isn't just antijobs, but a net loss to taxpayers as 
well. GAO's testimony on this policy said the amount of restructuring 
costs charged to DoD contracts ``could be substantial, possibly 
involving several billions of dollars.'' (GAO/T-NSIAD-94-247) 
Furthermore, GAO added that money spent on merger subsidies was 
``likely to place further increased pressure on DoD procurement 
budgets.''
  How can we, as guardians of the public purse, just watch as money 
goes out the door and nobody knows who's getting what and exactly how 
much this is costing us?
  To date, some 32 defense contractors have lined up to receive some of 
Uncle Sam's corporate largess. Lockheed-Martin is just one of those 
contractors, but their requests could cost the taxpayers $1.6 billion. 
Among Lockheed-Martin's approved requests for downsizing costs is a 
proposal submitted on January 31, 1996, to close down the Astro Space 
facility in East Windsor, NJ, which puts 3,200 jobs in jeopardy.
  Mr. Speaker, this policy is the direct cause of some 3,200 layoffs in 
my district alone, and it uses the tax dollars of these every same 
people to do it.
  Nor does anybody know what the net impact of these layoffs are likely 
to be. The premise, behind this policy are fundamentally at odds with 
America's free-market economy. Firms merge and restructure when they 
believe it is in their best interest to do so. If Wall Street lacks the 
confidence to underwrite a merger, why should Uncle Sam come to 
the rescue, doling out the tax dollars to make it work?

  The flaws in current law are legion. Current law says DOD can only 
pay out restructuring costs if they see audited cost savings. That 
sounds nice, but what about the ripple effects of all these layoffs? 
What about the lower revenues realized and higher government services 
needed to assist those thrown out of work? What about the reduction in 
competition as mergers lead to monopolies?
  This amendment is supported by a wide variety of organizations and 
individuals. Charlie Marciante of the New Jersey State AFL-CIO says 
``Republican Smith's amendment ensures that Uncle Sam's reimbursement 
offers do not prompt otherwise unlikely layoffs and it also ensures 
that taxpayers are not forced to pay for programs that put people out 
of work.''
  Steve Moore of the CATO Institute described the policy as ``an 
egregious example of unwarranted corporate welfare in our budget.'' Dr. 
Lawrence Korb, a former Under Secretary of Defense during the Reagan 
administration, said, ``By this policy of subsidizing defense mergers 
and acquisitions, the Clinton administration has already created 
megacompanies that will stifle competition and wield tremendous 
political power.''
  Defenders of merger subsidies argue that putting taxpayer money up 
front to pay for restructuring will lead to cost savings on future 
contracts. My question is: Since when is it the obligation of the 
Federal Government to inject itself into a firm's decisionmaking 
process by offering multimillion dollar inducements to merge and 
downsize?
  For defense contractors, the only thing that seems to separate a good 
business deal from a bad business deal is how much money Uncle Sam 
injects into the process. In fact, the former CEO of Lockheed-Martin, 
Norman Augustine, stated in congressional testimony: ``specifically, 
had [DOD] refused to [subsidize or reimburse] Martin Marietta's 
proposed General Dynamics Space Division acquisition we would not have 
made the purchase, certainly not because of spite, but simply because 
it would have been a bad business deal.'' (emphasis added) (HASC 103-
56, page 46).
  Furthermore, why should taxpayers give a windfall to companies to 
merge if it can be shown that they would have merged anyway? And the 
idea that Uncle Sam must share savings on cost-plus contracts in order 
to give incentives to defense contractors is seriously flawed.
  The fact of the matter is that when a contractor restructures, they 
save money for themselves and potentially to DOD. With lower overhead 
costs distributed throughout the newly merged organization, contractors 
pick up big savings on both fixed and cost-plus government contracts.
  So when contractors tell you how much money DOD may or may not save, 
what they conveniently leave out is how much money they--not us--are 
going to save on existing fixed-price contracts.
  In fact, Secretary Deutch actually conceded in congressional 
testimony that lower overhead costs for contractors will lead to 
windfalls on existing fixed-price contracts.
  My colleagues, this issue should be a no-brainer. We need to put a 
stop to merger subsidy payments until we actually get some hard 
evidence that this policy even comes close to being what its proponents 
suggest. I think when all the facts are in, you will agree with me to 
kill this policy outright. Let's take a breather from government-
subsidized ``merger mania'' and assess the damage already been done. 
Support 
the Smith-Sanders amendment to 
H.R. 3610.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith] for his strong efforts and willingness to work with us on this 
very important amendment, and also point out that the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge], the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] are also cosponsors and working 
with us on this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the chairman, Mr. Young, and 
the ranking member, Mr. Murtha, and all the Members of the House for 
the support that they gave me last year for an amendment which I 
successfully offered, which stopped the disgrace of the Pentagon 
providing a $32-million bonus for the CEO's and board members of 
Martin-Marietta for their merger, and that is a merger which ended up 
laying off at least 19,000 American workers.
  Well, if my colleagues think the $32 million was a waste of 
taxpayers' dollars, then they better listen up, because what the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I are talking about today 
amounts to billions of dollars. Yes, the taxpayers are providing 
payoffs for layoffs. We are actually giving multibillion-dollar 
corporations huge amounts of money in order to merge their companies, 
stifle competition, and lay off American workers. This is an absurd 
policy, it is a disgraceful policy, it is the worst kind of corporate 
welfare, and it is a policy that we should end today.
  Mr. Chairman, the Members who have come together to sponsor the 
Smith-Sanders amendment have different philosophical points of view, 
but we are in agreement that it is absurd that the U.S. Government is 
providing billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to huge profitable 
corporations so that they can merge and then lay off tens of thousands 
of American workers. That makes no sense to anyone.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has widespread support. It is supported 
by the Taxpayers for Common Sense, the CATO Institute, the Project on 
Government Oversight, and also supported by Lawrence J. Korb, the 
former Under Secretary of Defense under President Reagan.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a number of reasons why we should support 
this amendment. First, we have a $5-trillion national debt. We should 
not be providing billions of dollars in subsidies to large corporations 
to lay off American workers. Second of all, we have received almost no 
documentation from these companies as to what they are doing. What they 
are saying basically is, ``Don't worry, give us the money, trust us, 
we're going to save the government money.'' At the very least, we must 
have a clear outline of the net savings, and we want to know what 
savings will be effectuated.

  Mr. Chairman, if we can believe this, the Pentagon has never 
submitted any of the annual reports required by law on this program, 
and the first report was scheduled to be due in November 1995. It has 
never been filed.
  Mr. Chairman, in August 1995 the GAO began their own investigation in

[[Page H6348]]

spite of the inaction of the Pentagon. The GAO's first and only report 
on the two companies that applied for and received these payments 
stated that, and I quote, the contractor's proposed savings were based 
entirely on work force reductions, end quote.
  The GAO also found that in exchange for free taxpayer cash up front, 
the same companies--FMC Corp. and Harsco Corp. BMY--projected out-year 
savings fell 85 percent short of what they originally presented to DOD. 
Further, the GAO reported that only one hearing has ever been held on a 
policy the GAO has said could cost, quote, several billions of dollars. 
The GAO also reported that 32 contractors have already lined up and put 
in requests to receive merger subsidies. One hearing. Billions of 
dollars.
  Third, Mr. Chairman, we can agree about the wisdom or lack of wisdom 
of industrial policy, but I think everybody here understands that it 
makes no sense for the government to get involved in the private sector 
so that we can lose American jobs. That is insane.
  I would support industrial policy if it created decent-paying jobs. 
Some in this body would not support any industrial policy. The thing 
they must ask themselves is why is the government selecting certain 
very large corporations and saying to them, quote, the taxpayers are 
going to help your company engender certain efficiencies, end quote.
  Essentially what the Pentagon is doing is saying to this company, 
``We're going to help you, we're not going to help the other company.'' 
They are encouraging mergers. I think there is a lot to be discussed in 
terms of this whole issue.
  Last, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that at a time when real wages in 
this country for working people are in decline, at a time when people 
are scared to death about whether or not they are going to have their 
decent paying jobs, they do not want to see their tax dollars going to 
large multibillion-dollar corporations so that these companies can then 
merge and lay off American workers.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. SANDERS. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we should be standing in 
opposition to that policy. Our tax dollars should not be going to that 
policy. Imagine the worker from Lockheed-Martin who has been laid off 
because of the merger saying, ``My tax dollars went to laying me off 
and to hurt my family.'' That makes no sense.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief because I understand 
the managers of this amendment have agreed to accept it. I appreciate 
their graciousness in that regard very much but I also want to say that 
I appreciate Mr. Smith's work on this and the work of many others. This 
amendment, I think, would have received widespread support on both 
sides of the aisle. I have been told that there are already some 32 
companies that have filed approximately 2 billion dollars' worth of 
claims under this program and I think that if we had not been careful 
that this would very quickly turn into one of the largest boondoggles 
in the entire Federal Government.
  The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] both made reference to the $92 million in bonuses 
that were paid out in one merger, approximately a third of those paid 
by the taxpayers. One man received a bonus of $9.2 million. I do not 
believe there is any way that he could have really earned that type of 
bonus. I think this is a program that really would horrify most 
taxpayers if they realized that it was going on and is something that 
we have never done and would not even consider, I don't believe, for 
99.9 percent of the small businesses in this country. I am pleased that 
this amendment is going to be accepted, and I hope it survives in 
conference.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I really did not want to get into this fight here, but 
I have been working on this same thing for 3 years. It seems strange 
that somebody who is almost fighting a single battle about 
privatization in this country and worried about Federal employees has 
to come up here and try to bring a lot of sensibility into this.
  The gentleman said that there were no documents submitted and they 
are right. They were supposed to submit them in November 1995. Today I 
talked to the Defense Department. OMB held it up for some unknown 
reason, I cannot imagine that long, but they will be in in 2 weeks.

                              {time}  1530

  As far as no documentation that the gentleman said, I want to show 
this body section 818 and what we did in that, and then with the 
Defense Department. This is all of the loops before one penny can come 
out that they have to go through and be signed off by the Secretary of 
Defense or an Assistant Secretary of Defense.
  I want DOD held accountable when they reimburse defense contractors 
for restructuring costs. Section 818 achieves this goal. And I think 
the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith] fully appreciate that. We have certainly briefed 
their staff on that.
  They object to the payment of any reimbursement whatever, and all of 
us understand why. I know in the case of the gentleman from New Jersey 
I would be the same way if a merger or combination led to a plant being 
closed in my district, and that is how I got started in this out in 
California with former Congresswoman Schenk, who came to me, and that 
is why we had hearings on it.
  But the question is whether this is a good policy. Should DOD 
reimburse restructuring costs? And I think the answer is yes. Perhaps 
some of the reason why is for over 10 years DOD procurement spending 
declined more than 60 percent, 60 percent. There is a significant 
overcapacity in the defense industry, and that leads to higher overhead 
and higher prices for defense goods and services.
  Yes, it is sad to lay off people, but it is also sad for a plant to 
go into bankruptcy and lay off people. We just do not have enough 
business for all the defense contractors. In some cases the most 
effective restructuring comes from business combinations, acquisitions, 
and mergers. DOD reimburses contractors for restructuring after 
acquisitions or mergers that will clearly result in overhead savings 
for DOD. DOD provides this incentive because the quicker a 
restructuring occurs, the sooner the Department of Defense and this 
Government saves money.
  Restructuring costs are costs the company incurs to combine 
facilities and eliminate layers of management. DOD pays a share of 
allowable costs, such as severance pay, retirement incentives, job 
training, moving equipment, and relocating employees.
  Now, listen to this carefully. This came from the Department of 
Defense, I have not had GAO, although we have had a report which came 
from GAO, but DOD does not pay for executive golden parachutes, good 
will, or for gains or losses resulting from the transfer of assets. No 
matter what Members read in the paper, and I just heard it now, DOD 
does not pay for executive bonuses that are contingent solely on merger 
or acquisitions.

  When I learned about DOD's policy of reimbursing restructuring costs, 
I held hearings and wrote section 818. GAO says it works because they 
want to repeal it. The industry wants to repeal it because it is too 
hard to get that money. Section 818 protects taxpayers by forcing DOD 
to benefit from the legitimate savings of restructuring.
  For over 3 years DOD has negotiated restructuring agreements that 
will save this Government over $1.4 billion by agreeing to pay 
restructuring costs of about $300 million. I think that is a heck of a 
deal for the taxpayers, and I ask Members to oppose changes in a sound 
policy and good law.
  I have come out of the business world and I think I know a little bit 
about what is happening. I have a lot of public facilities down my way, 
and what we are trying to do now is reduce overhead, no matter how we 
have to do it, to reduce overhead. And this flies raw in the face of 
just that.

[[Page H6349]]

  I ask, and I know that Members will accept the amendment and I will 
not argue with Members on that, but the argument is not over yet 
because this is the wrong policy that we are getting ready to do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Sisisky was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SISISKY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his work 
on this thing, and I have great sympathy for what the gentleman from 
Vermont, Congressman Sanders, and the gentleman from New Jersey, 
Congressman Smith, are doing, but I think there is one other point that 
needs to be made here. When we go from $135 billion a year in 
procurement down to $38.5 billion a year in procurement, we need less 
infrastructure, less industrial base to handle those things, and it 
will require some downsizing.
  I think one of the things I have been committed to, I know the 
gentleman from Virginia has too, is to help when these Government 
workers, and other workers, private sector workers, get dislocated, to 
try to have funds to help them get retrained and back into some new 
endeavor. But to think we can completely avoid any downsizing when we 
go from $135 billion a year in procurement down to $38 billion, I think 
we have to think about that.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, therein lies the 
problem, really. It is not an easy problem to solve, but we just cannot 
afford to save everybody and save every company.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I would like to point out to my colleagues that we have discussed 
this, and although the Department of Defense strongly opposes this, we 
think there is some merit to what the gentleman from New Jersey and the 
gentleman from Vermont are trying to do. We have agreed to accept the 
amendment with the understanding that we would certainly allow the 
Department of Defense to come back to us with whatever legal 
information that they would have relative to this.
  One of the reasons we did this was to save a lengthy debate. If we 
are going to get into a lengthy debate, we may have to start getting 
into the details of this and maybe we will not be able to accept it.
  So at this point I am prepared to accept it with the understanding 
that we will have to take a close look at this between now and 
conference, because the Department of Defense is definitely opposed to 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey. Page 24, line 17, after the 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $314,100,000)''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 
minutes, to be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, could I 
ask the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], what weapon systems are 
covered in this?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do not want to 
impose on the House a lengthy explanation, but essentially what I am 
trying to do is to eliminate six C-130-J airplanes from this bill 
because we can save $10 million a year by waiting until next year to 
buy the same six planes.
  So that is basically what I am trying to do with the amendment, and I 
do not really much care how much time we have on the amendment.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, how much time was asked for?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. My unanimous consent request is still pending; 
correct, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman want to change 
the time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] has the 
time.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Forty minutes?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Twenty?
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent 
request.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if there are no other requests pending, might 
I be recognized?
  The CHAIRMAN. If there is no unanimous consent, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the Air Force wants to buy C-130-J transport 
aircraft but they only wanted to buy one of them. The Air Force, 
instead, is getting six more planes than they expected.
  I do not really know whether they need those additional planes or 
not, that is up to somebody who knows a whole lot more about the 
military requirements of the Air Force on this point than I do. But the 
problem is that they do not need these planes for more than a decade, 
and the real kicker is that the Air Force documents, which were 
obtained by the General Accounting Office, indicated that the Air Force 
and Lockheed have agreed that the price will drop in fiscal 1998 by 
$8.4 million a plane or $50 million total for the six aircraft.
  In other words, all we have to do to save the $50 million is to wait 
1 year. Now, it seems to me under those circumstances that the decision 
to buy in bulk before the discount defies common sense, but that is 
exactly what we are going to do.
  The issue here is very simple. There will be a lot of people who will 
want to buy these planes. I am not getting into that argument. All I am 
saying is if the Air Force needs the planes they can get them next year 
at a discount. But by buying them this year it will cost us $50 million 
more. That is very expensive $50 million ride the taxpayers are being 
taken on, and so I would simply, in the interest of economy, say go 
ahead and buy these planes, but do not buy them until next year because 
we can save $50 million if we simply wait 1 year. It is a done deal.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment, and I would call to the attention of our 
colleagues that we have already reduced the C-130 line in the manager's 
amendment we adopted earlier today.
  Among the six aircraft that the Obey amendment would eliminate are 
four hurricane hunters, WC-30s. These hurricane hunters are extremely 
important to the United States and especially areas that are subject to 
hurricanes. The other two of those aircraft would be airborne command 
and control aircraft. We have already eliminated one of those in the 
amendment that we have already done.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] makes the case that the Air 
Force does not want them. Not so. During our hearings, for those 
Members who attended the hearings, they will recall that when we asked 
the Air Force for their list of unfunded requirements, these aircraft 
were on that list.
  So the Air Force does not want these airplanes and those of us who 
are concerned about prediction of hurricane paths and things of this 
nature, we want these airplanes. We want them to be able to fly, to 
give us advanced warning to protect our properties and our lives.
  So I hope we will defeat this amendment. It is definitely on the Air 
Force's list of aircraft they would have funded if they did not have a 
political number so low that they could not ask for it. But it is on 
their list.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let 
me say from the national security side and the procurement subcommittee 
we also asked the Air Force what they needed, and they, in fact, sent 
these aircraft over to us on a list. They do want it,

[[Page H6350]]

and we are having that list sent over here and we will supply it to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin whenever he wants it.
  It is requested and it is very important to the Air Force.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those 
comments, but I have the list here. This is a copy of the Air Force 
unfunded requirements list, and the C-130 requirement is right on this 
page.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have great 
respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, as well as the chairman of this subcommittee, they have 
done well on the procurement of appropriations, but I am worried we are 
moving a little too fast on this amendment.
  We have already cut one C-130 from this bill and this, now, is six C-
130's. Last night it was seven C-130's. Now it is cut back to six. Four 
of these C-130's are going to the Air Reserve for the hurricane hunters 
who are flying 40-year-old C-130's now.
  It is a dangerous mission going out and looking for hurricanes, 
seeing which way they are going, how much danger is in the turbulence 
of these hurricanes. And so these six that he is eliminating, four will 
go to the Air Reserve. If it had not been for this Congress, we would 
not have any new equipment for the Air Guard and for the Air Reserve.
  I think this is a mistake. I hope we will vote against the amendment.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the dean of the 
Mississippi delegation. It is common knowledge that world's populations 
are moving to the shorelines. Even in this country, well over half of 
the people in this country live within 50 miles of the coast.
  Mr. Chairman, that means that every one of them is vulnerable to a 
typhoon or hurricane and every one of them needs to know when to leave 
prior to that hurricane. The greatest commission that these planes that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] would do away with serves is to 
let people know where and when a killer storm is going to land.
  Coming from a place which Hurricane Camille literally knocked off the 
map, where 250 people in south Mississippi were murdered in one night 
by a storm, I call tell my colleagues how important it is that people 
know where and when a storm hits. People thought Hurricane Camille was 
going to hit New Orleans. It did not. It hit Mississippi, and because 
people did not leave, 250 lives were lost.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Young] for his opposition to this amendment, and I thank the senior 
member of the Mississippi delegation for standing firm in trying to 
replace these 30-year-old aircraft, that is the newest, where people 
are literally playing Russian roulette every time they fly a mission 
because they are the most dangerous peacetime missions that the Air 
Force serves.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that we are not eliminating 
the hurricane-seeking capability that the gentleman is talking about. 
They can use existing aircraft for that, and the Air Force testified to 
that.
  All we are saying is if we are going to buy new replacement 
airplanes, wait 1 year so that we can save $8.5 million a copy. Given 
the squeeze on the budget, I do not think that is an unreasonable 
request since the agreement has already been reached that any planes 
that are bought next year will be $8.5 million cheaper.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, with the new 
equipment that we have given the Guard and Reserve in the Air Force, 40 
percent of all the missions of the Air Force are flown by the Air 
Reserve and the Air Guard.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a step backward. I hope Members will vote 
against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered is withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         TITLE IV--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

           Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, as authorized by law; 
     $4,874,537,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1998: Provided, That of the funds appropriated 
     in this paragraph, $194,558,000 shall not be obligated or 
     expended until authorized by law.

           Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, as authorized by law; 
     $8,399,357,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1998: Provided, That funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph which are available for the V-22 may be used to 
     meet unique requirements of the Special Operations Forces: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph, $209,400,000 shall not be obligated or expended 
     until authorized by law.

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, as authorized by law; 
     $14,969,573,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1998: Provided, That of the funds made 
     available in this paragraph, $25,000,000 shall be only for 
     development of reusable launch vehicle technologies: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, 
     $1,698,486,000 shall not be obligated or expended until 
     authorized by law.

       Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary 
     for basic and applied scientific research, development, test 
     and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be 
     designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense, 
     pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and 
     operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law; 
     $9,068,558,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1998: Provided, That not less than $304,171,000 
     of the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be made 
     available only for the Sea-Based Wide Area Defense (Navy 
     Upper-Tier) program.

               Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, of independent 
     activities of the Director, Test and Evaluation in the 
     direction and supervision of developmental test and 
     evaluation, including performance and joint developmental 
     testing and evaluation; and administrative expenses in 
     connection therewith; $272,038,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 1998: Provided, That of the 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph, $20,000,000 shall not 
     be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and 
     Evacuation in the direction and supervision of operational 
     test and evaluation, including initial operational test and 
     evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of, 
     production decisions; joint operational testing and 
     evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection 
     therewith; $26,968,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 1998: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph, $5,000,000 shall not be 
     obligated or expended until authorized by law.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that title IV of the bill be considered as read, 
printed in the

[[Page H6351]]

Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

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

       Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Obey: Page 29, line 10, 
     after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $1,000,000,000)''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
debate on this amendment, and all amendments thereto, close in 10 
minutes and that the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply cut $1 billion of the 
roughly $2 billion appropriated in the bill to continue research and 
development for the F-22 fighter aircraft. The amendment would direct 
the Air Force to use the remaining $1 billion to restructure and delay 
the program by 5 years for one simple reason: Because the General 
Accounting Office said it ought to be delayed 7 years, and it seems to 
me that that being the case, we ought to delay it at least 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason, as I see it, is very simple. The Air Force 
and the F-22 supporters want us to spend some $70 billion to buy 442 F-
22 replacement planes for the F-15E's. The fact is that we right now 
have 734 F-15E's. They are estimated to have a military useful shelf 
life to at least 2010.
  So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, therefore, that it is absurd for us 
to buy replacement aircraft for the best fighter aircraft in the world 
7 years or more before we need to.
  I recognize that there is tremendous pressure to proceed with this 
purchase and this expenditure. They have subcontracts salted in 
virtually every State in the Union, and I understand why so few people 
are going to vote for this amendment. But that does not mean that 
cutting out this expenditure at this time is the wrong thing to do.

  Mr. Chairman, it is the right thing to do. We are seeing a squeeze on 
the budget all over, whether we are looking at what is happening on 
housing, whether we are looking at what is happening on the 
environment, on education, and in fact and indeed other defense 
programs.
  It seems to me, therefore, that we ought to listen to the accounting 
arm of the Congress itself, the General Accounting Office, when it says 
that we ought not to replace these planes early.
  I realize that I just misspoke, Mr. Chairman. I indicated that the 
military useful shelf life of the existing 
F-15E's took us out to at least 2010. I misspoke. It takes us out to at 
least 2015, so we have plenty of margin. We have incredible overlap by 
this purchase.
  It seems to me that we ought to save the billion dollars that I am 
talking about in this bill by stretching out the purchase of this new 
fighter for at least 5 of the 7 years recommended by the GAO.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Again, this 
amendment was defeated in the full committee on a very large vote, and 
I would ask that we have that same negative vote on this amendment now.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, and I appreciate the 
gentleman from Florida yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, the F-22 is the Air Force's No. 1 priority. I think 
this has been an outstanding program. My only concern about it, 
frankly, is quite the contrary of my good friend from Wisconsin. I 
think we are going at this program too slowly and we are going to wind 
up spending more money on it because we are dragging it out.
  Mr. Chairman, to cut this program this significantly this year would 
delay it even further and completely disrupt this R&D program. This 
plane will give us stealth capability and the highest military 
capability for the future.
  Our committee is just as concerned as anyone about long-range power 
projection and tac air, and we have ordered a study to look at these 
two issues. I am prepared to wait and see what the outcome of the study 
is, but I urge my colleagues to stay with the committee, support the F-
22. This is an outstanding program and the Air Force's No. 1 priority.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hunter], a member of the Committee on National 
Security.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey], my friend, it is not the shelf life of the aircraft that is 
important; it is the survival time and the survivability of the pilot 
who is flying the aircraft who may happen to be in a kill zone, meaning 
that he is being tracked by a SAM system with a missile at the end of 
that SAM system.
  Now, the F-22 has a stealth capability. That means if we have people 
with SAM's down on the ground aiming at our aircraft with an American 
pilot, they have a much smaller chance of being able to hit that 
American airplane than they do with the F-15's which have more shelf 
life.
  We preserved the F-117 program, we in Congress preserved it. It 
served us well in Desert Storm. We should preserve the F-22 program 
because that will save the lives of American pilots and project our air 
power.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, representing tens of thousands of Americans and tens of 
thousands of American fighting men and women all across the world, I 
rise today and urge strong defeat of this amendment.
  Its proponent, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said it is 
absurd to buy new fighter aircraft. Hogwash. It is essential that we 
purchase these new fighter aircraft. It is essential that we continue 
the efforts to develop the next generation of fighter aircraft which 
will take us well into the 21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, while the gentleman is busy listening to the 
accountants and the bean counters, I am listening to, and you are 
listening to, the fighting men and women who depend on that air 
superiority for their very lives.
  This is a foolish amendment. Let us stand up for a program that is 
recognized by Presidents, Republican and Democrat alike. This is 
extremely important. This is bipartisan. I urge defeat of this wrong-
headed and misguided amendment. Support the F-22 program. Support our 
troops in the world, and support air superiority into the 21st century. 
Defeat the amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to how much 
time I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. Each side has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The manager of the bill has the right to close.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply read two quotes from the senior DOD 
official who gave the background briefing on March 1, 1996, who said 
the following: ``We're committed to it (the F-22) even though I can't 
project a threat right now that justifies an F-22.''
  That was said by the Defense Department official who provided the 
background briefing. The GAO report in March 1994 said, ``Our analysis 
shows that the F-15 exceeds the most advanced threat system expected to 
exist

[[Page H6352]]

* * * Thus, the F-22 initial operational capability can be delayed 7 
years.''
  Now, I know the usual game on this bill. We have military contractors 
all over the country and because this country is doing very little else 
to generate jobs and employment, the Defense Department is having its 
budget used as a fancy public works program.
  But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, it is ludicrous for us to spend $70 
billion on a new system that we do not need for at least 7 years and 
probably twice that long. It is absolutely ludicrous. There is only one 
reason that this Congress is proceeding, and that is because it is 
being lobbied to death by all kinds of contractors and subcontractors.
  I do not doubt that there are some Members of the House who 
intellectually feel that this is a good system, but we are going to be 
in a budget squeeze. We have to recognize that just because the service 
wants something, we cannot necessarily afford to give them everything 
they want. The fact is that on the merits, especially given competing 
priorities in the Defense Department as well as out, we ought to delay 
this.
  That is what this does. This does not end the program; it simply 
delays it. There is no reason to rush to building a new $70 billion 
system for which, in the words of the DOD official doing the background 
briefing, there is no threat that he can cite right now to justify 
moving ahead with this aircraft.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] a distinguished member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that both the F-
15E and the F-16 are not stealthy aircraft, and there has been a 
proliferation of surface-to-air missiles, including the SA-10, which is 
a threat to any nonstealthy aircraft that flies today.
  So if we are going to send our young men and women into combat in 
these aircraft, we need to have a stealthy airplane. I have been a 
major advocate for stealth because it saves money and it saves lives. 
We can send them into the most heavily defended areas and with standoff 
weapons take out the surface-to-air missiles where conventional planes 
would be shot down.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the many responsibilities that members of this 
subcommittee have is to look out for the taxpayer and make sure that 
their tax dollars are spent wisely, and at the same time make sure that 
we provide enough money to ensure our national security.
  On this particular program, the F-22, previous program stretchouts 
have delayed completing the F-22 by nearly 3 years with a cost growth 
of $1.8 billion. We could have used that $1.8 billion somewhere else. 
Additional slowdowns or growth time involved in the program will cost 
additional money.
  The gentleman's reduction, as recommended by the Obey amendment, 
would postpone indefinitely the deployment of the F-22 at the time we 
are now beginning to build the airplane. Any reduction in this program 
could be very costly, in fact it could lead to as much as a 40-percent 
increase in the cost of the balance of this program.
  This subcommittee is trying to play catchup. We are trying to pay off 
some credit card bills that developed over the years.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Chairman, we are trying to make sure we conduct defense 
procurement on a very strict, businesslike basis. This amendment will 
upset all of those plans. Let us defeat this amendment, as we did in 
the full committee, on a strong bipartisan vote and guarantee that the 
flyers, the pilots, the aviators, the warriors of just a few years from 
now will have the best equipment possible should they be required to 
risk their life in the defense of our Nation. I oppose the amendment 
and ask for a no vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 453, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order:
  Amendment No. 14 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]; 
amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Obey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment No. 14 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 143, 
noes 285, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 240]

                               AYES--143

     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Campbell
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Heineman
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--285

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde

[[Page H6353]]


     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bilbray
     Gillmor
     Hayes
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Schumer

                             {time}   1623

  Mr. GREENWOOD, Mr. HANCOCK, and Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BERMAN. TORRES, INGLIS of South Carolina, and CASTLE changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 240 on H.R. 3610 
I was unavoidable detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye''.


                  amendment no. 17 offered by mr. obey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment number 17 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
``noes'' prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--ayes 126, 
noes 299, not voting 9, as follows.

                             [Roll No. 241]

                               AYES--126

     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Campbell
     Clay
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hoekstra
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--299

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bilbray
     Gillmor
     Hayes
     Johnson (CT)
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McDade
     Schumer
     Williams

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. DEUTSCH and Mr. BRYANT of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 241, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 241 on H.R. 3610 
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''


                  amendment no. 19 offered by mr. obey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 19 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page H6354]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 119, 
noes 307, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No 242]

                               AYES--119

     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hilliard
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--307

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bilbray
     de la Garza
     Gillmor
     Hayes
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Norwood
     Schumer

                              {time}  1639

  Mr. ROYCE and Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota changed their vote from 
``aye'' to `no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 242 on H.R. 3610, 
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to title IV?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE V

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                    Defense Business Operations Fund

       For the Defense Business Operations Fund; $947,900,000.

                     National Defense Sealift Fund

       For National Defense Sealift Fund programs (including the 
     development and acquisition of lighterage), projects, and 
     activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve 
     Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship 
     Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744); $1,904,002,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That none of the 
     funds provided in this paragraph shall be used to award a new 
     contract that provides for the acquisition of any of the 
     following major components unless such components are 
     manufactured in the United States: auxiliary equipment, 
     including pumps, for all shipboard services; propulsion 
     system components (that is; engines, reduction gears, and 
     propellers); shipboard cranes; and spreaders for shipboard 
     cranes: Provided further, That the exercise of an option in a 
     contract awarded through the obligation of previously 
     appropriated funds shall not be considered to be the award of 
     a new contract: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     military department responsible for such procurement may 
     waive these restrictions on a case-by-case basis by 
     certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate, that adequate 
     domestic supplies are not available to meet Department of 
     Defense requirements on a timely basis and that such an 
     acquisition must be made in order to acquire capability for 
     national security purposes: Provided further, That of the 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph, $781,000,000 shall not 
     be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

                                TITLE VI

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, for medical and 
     health care programs of the Department of Defense, as 
     authorized by law; $9,667,658,000, of which $9,398,188,000 
     shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which not to 
     exceed three percent shall remain available until September 
     30, 1998; and of which $269,470,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 1999, shall be for 
     Procurement: Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, of the funds provided under this heading, 
     the Secretary of Defense is directed to use and obligate, 
     within thirty days of enactment of this Act, not less than 
     $3,400,000 only to permit private sector or non-Federal 
     physicians who have used and will use the antibacterial 
     treatment method based upon the excretion of dead and 
     decaying spherical bacteria to work in conjunction with the 
     Walter Reed Army Medical Center on a treatment protocol and 
     related studies for Desert Storm Syndrome affected veterans.

          Chemical, Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical 
     agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 
     1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other 
     chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical 
     weapon stockpile, $799,847,000, of which $477,947,000 shall 
     be for Operation and maintenance, $273,600,000 shall be for 
     Procurement to remain available until September 30, 1999, and 
     $48,300,000 shall be for Research, development, test and 
     evaluation to remain available until September 30, 1998.

         Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the 
     Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense for military personnel 
     of the reserve components serving under the provisions of 
     title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for Operation and 
     maintenance; for Procurement; and for Research, development, 
     test and evaluation; $774,724,000: Provided, That the funds 
     appropriated by this

[[Page H6355]]

     paragraph shall be available for obligation for the same time 
     period and for the same purpose as the appropriation to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That the transfer authority 
     provided in this paragraph is in addition to any transfer 
     authority contained elsewhere in this Act: Provided further, 
     That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, $92,000,000 
     shall not be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended; $138,501,000, of which 
     $136,502,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which 
     not to exceed $400,000 is available for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made 
     on his certificate of necessity for confidential military 
     purposes; and of which $2,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1999, shall be for Procurement.

                                TITLE VII

                            RELATED AGENCIES

    Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund

       For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement 
     and Disability System Fund, to maintain proper funding level 
     for continuing the operation of the Central Intelligence 
     Agency Retirement and Disability System; $196,400,000.

               Intelligence Community Management Account

       For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community 
     Management Account; $149,555,000.

Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental 
                            Restoration Fund

       For payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, 
     and Environmental Restoration Fund, as authorized by law; 
     $10,000,000, to remain available until expended.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of title V, title VI and title VII 
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 gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               TITLE VIII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 8002. During the current fiscal year, provisions of 
     law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment 
     of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall not 
     apply to personnel of the Department of Defense: Provided, 
     That salary increases granted to direct and indirect hire 
     foreign national employees of the Department of Defense 
     funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess of the 
     percentage increase authorized by law for civilian employees 
     of the Department of Defense whose pay is computed under the 
     provisions of section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, or 
     at a rate in excess of the percentage increase provided by 
     the appropriate host nation to its own employees, whichever 
     is higher: Provided further, That this section shall not 
     apply to Department of Defense foreign service national 
     employees serving at United States diplomatic missions whose 
     pay is set by the Department of State under the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980: Provided further, That the limitations 
     of this provision shall not apply to foreign national 
     employees of the Department of Defense in the Republic of 
     Turkey.
       Sec. 8003. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 8004. No more than 20 per centum of the appropriations 
     in this Act which are limited for obligation during the 
     current fiscal year shall be obligated during the last two 
     months of the fiscal year: Provided, That this section shall 
     not apply to obligations for support of active duty training 
     of reserve components or summer camp training of the Reserve 
     Officers' Training Corps.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense 
     that such action is necessary in the national interest, he 
     may, with the approval of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, transfer not to exceed $2,000,000,000 of working 
     capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made 
     available in this Act to the Department of Defense for 
     military functions (except military construction) between 
     such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, 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, That such authority to transfer 
     may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on 
     unforeseen military requirements, than those for which 
     originally appropriated and in no case where the item for 
     which funds are requested has been denied by Congress: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify 
     the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this 
     authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided 
     further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available to prepare or present a request to the Committees 
     on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for 
     higher priority items, based on unforeseen military 
     requirements, than those for which originally appropriated 
     and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is 
     requested has been denied by the Congress.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8006. During the current fiscal year, cash balances in 
     working capital funds of the Department of Defense 
     established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United 
     States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are 
     necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from 
     such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such 
     funds and the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense'' and 
     ``Operation and Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such 
     amounts as may be determined by the Secretary of Defense, 
     with the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, 
     except that such transfers may not be made unless the 
     Secretary of Defense has notified the Congress of the 
     proposed transfer. Except in amounts equal to the amounts 
     appropriated to working capital funds in this Act, no 
     obligations may be made against a working capital fund to 
     procure or increase the value of war reserve material 
     inventory, unless the Secretary of Defense has notified the 
     Congress prior to any such obligation.
       Sec. 8007. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used 
     to initiate a special access program without prior 
     notification 30 calendar days in session in advance to the 
     congressional defense committees.
       Sec. 8008. None of the funds contained in this Act 
     available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
     Uniformed Services shall be available for payments to 
     physicians and other non-institutional health care providers 
     in excess of the amounts allowed in fiscal year 1996 for 
     similar services, except that: (a) for services for which the 
     Secretary of Defense determines an increase is justified by 
     economic circumstances, the allowable amounts may be 
     increased in accordance with appropriate economic index data 
     similar to that used pursuant to title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act; and (b) for services the Secretary determines 
     are overpriced based on allowable payments under title XVIII 
     of the Social Security Act, the allowable amounts shall be 
     reduced by not more than 15 percent (except that the 
     reduction may be waived if the Secretary determines that it 
     would impair adequate access to health care services for 
     beneficiaries). The Secretary shall solicit public comment 
     prior to promulgating regulations to implement this section. 
     Such regulations shall include a limitation, similar to that 
     used under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, on the 
     extent to which a provider may bill a beneficiary an actual 
     charge in excess of the allowable amount.
       Sec. 8009. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available to initiate (1) a multiyear contract that employs 
     economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 
     in any one year of the contract or that includes an unfunded 
     contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000, or (2) a 
     contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear 
     contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in 
     excess of $20,000,000 in any one year, unless the 
     congressional defense committees have been notified at least 
     thirty days in advance of the proposed contract award: 
     Provided, That no part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available to initiate a multiyear contract for 
     which the economic order quantity advance procurement is not 
     funded at least to the limits of the Government's liability: 
     Provided further, That no part of any appropriation contained 
     in this Act shall be available to initiate multiyear 
     procurement contracts for any systems or component thereof if 
     the value of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 
     unless specifically provided in this Act: Provided further, 
     That no multiyear procurement contract can be terminated 
     without 10-day prior notification to the congressional 
     defense committees: Provided further, That the execution of 
     multiyear authority shall require the use of a present value 
     analysis to determine lowest cost compared to an annual 
     procurement.
       Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used for 
     multiyear procurement contracts as follows:
       Javelin missiles;
       Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS);
       MK19-3 grenade machine guns;
       M16A2 rifles;
       M249 Squad Automatic Weapons;
       M4 carbine rifles; and
       M240B machine guns.
       Sec. 8010. Within the funds appropriated for the operation 
     and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby 
     appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United 
     States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs 
     under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds 
     may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance 
     costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to 
     authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and these obligations shall be

[[Page H6356]]

     reported to Congress on September 30 of each year: Provided, 
     That funds available for operation and maintenance shall be 
     available for providing humanitarian and similar assistance 
     by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust Territories of the 
     Pacific Islands and freely associated states of Micronesia, 
     pursuant to the Compact of Free Association as authorized by 
     Public Law 99-239: Provided further, That upon a 
     determination by the Secretary of the Army that such action 
     is beneficial for graduate medical education programs 
     conducted at Army medical facilities located in Hawaii, the 
     Secretary of the Army may authorize the provision of medical 
     services at such facilities and transportation to such 
     facilities, on a nonreimbursable basis, for civilian patients 
     from American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 
     Micronesia, Palau, and Guam.
       Sec. 8011. (a) During fiscal year 1997, the civilian 
     personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on 
     the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such 
     personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any 
     constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the 
     number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day 
     of such fiscal year.
       (b) The fiscal year 1998 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 1998 Department of 
     Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were 
     effective with regard to fiscal year 1998.
       (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to 
     military (civilian) technicians.
       Sec. 8012. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds made available by this Act shall be used by the 
     Department of Defense to exceed, outside the fifty United 
     States, its territories, and the District of Columbia, 
     125,000 civilian workyears: Provided, That workyears shall be 
     applied as defined in the Federal Personnel Manual: Provided 
     further, That workyears expended in dependent student hiring 
     programs for disadvantaged youths shall not be included in 
     this workyear limitation.
       Sec. 8013. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to 
     influence congressional action on any legislation or 
     appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
       Sec. 8014. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     shall be used to make contributions to the Department of 
     Defense Education Benefits Fund pursuant to section 2006(g) 
     of title 10, United States Code, representing the normal cost 
     for future benefits under section 3015(c) of title 38, United 
     States Code, for any member of the armed services who, on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act--
       (1) enlists in the armed services for a period of active 
     duty of less than three years; or
       (2) receives an enlistment bonus under section 308a or 308f 
     of title 37, United States Code,

     nor shall any amounts representing the normal cost of such 
     future benefits be transferred from the Fund by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pursuant 
     to section 2006(d) of title 10, United States Code; nor shall 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pay such benefits to any 
     such member: Provided, That in the case of a member covered 
     by clause (1), these limitations shall not apply to members 
     in combat arms skills or to members who enlist in the armed 
     services on or after July 1, 1989, under a program continued 
     or established by the Secretary of Defense in fiscal year 
     1991 to test the cost-effective use of special recruiting 
     incentives involving not more than nineteen noncombat arms 
     skills approved in advance by the Secretary of Defense: 
     Provided further, That this subsection applies only to active 
     components of the Army.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
     available for the basic pay and allowances of any member of 
     the Army participating as a full-time student and receiving 
     benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from the 
     Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when time spent 
     as a full-time student is credited toward completion of a 
     service commitment: Provided, That this subsection shall not 
     apply to those members who have reenlisted with this option 
     prior to October 1, 1987: Provided further, That this 
     subsection applies only to active components of the Army.
       Sec. 8015. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to convert to contractor performance an activity 
     or function of the Department of Defense that, on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, is performed by more than 
     ten Department of Defense civilian employees until a most 
     efficient and cost-effective organization analysis is 
     completed on such activity or function and certification of 
     the analysis is made to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate: Provided, That 
     this section shall not apply to a commercial or industrial 
     type function of the Department of Defense that: (1) is 
     included on the procurement list established pursuant to 
     section 2 of the Act of June 25, 1938 (41 U.S.C. 47), 
     popularly referred to as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act; (2) is 
     planned to be converted to performance by a qualified 
     nonprofit agency for the blind or by a qualified nonprofit 
     agency for other severely handicapped individuals in 
     accordance with that Act; or (3) is planned to be converted 
     to performance by a qualified firm under 51 percent Native 
     American ownership.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8016. Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for 
     the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be 
     transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act 
     solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege 
     Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to 
     section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2301 note), 
     as amended, under the authority of this provision or any 
     other transfer authority contained in this Act.
       Sec. 8017. None of the funds in this Act may be available 
     for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its 
     departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and 
     mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the 
     anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United 
     States from components which are substantially manufactured 
     in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this 
     section manufactured will include cutting, heat treating, 
     quality control, testing of chain and welding (including the 
     forging and shot blasting process): Provided further, That 
     for the purpose of this section substantially all of the 
     components of anchor and mooring chain shall be considered to 
     be produced or manufactured in the United States if the 
     aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured in 
     the United States exceeds the aggregate cost of the 
     components produced or manufactured outside the United 
     States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service 
     responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on 
     a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be 
     made in order to acquire capability for national security 
     purposes.
       Sec. 8018. None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
     Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) shall be available for the 
     reimbursement of any health care provider for inpatient 
     mental health service for care received when a patient is 
     referred to a provider of inpatient mental health care or 
     residential treatment care by a medical or health care 
     professional having an economic interest in the facility to 
     which the patient is referred: Provided, That this limitation 
     does not apply in the case of inpatient mental health 
     services provided under the program for the handicapped under 
     subsection (d) of section 1079 of title 10, United States 
     Code, provided as partial hospital care, or provided pursuant 
     to a waiver authorized by the Secretary of Defense because of 
     medical or psychological circumstances of the patient that 
     are confirmed by a health professional who is not a Federal 
     employee after a review, pursuant to rules prescribed by the 
     Secretary, which takes into account the appropriate level of 
     care for the patient, the intensity of services required by 
     the patient, and the availability of that care.
       Sec. 8019. Funds available in this Act may be used to 
     provide transportation for the next-of-kin of individuals who 
     have been prisoners of war or missing in action from the 
     Vietnam era to an annual meeting in the United States, under 
     such regulations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.
       Sec. 8020. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during the current fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense may, 
     by Executive Agreement, establish with host nation 
     governments in NATO member states a separate account into 
     which such residual value amounts negotiated in the return of 
     United States military installations in NATO member states 
     may be deposited, in the currency of the host nation, in lieu 
     of direct monetary transfers to the United States Treasury: 
     Provided, That such credits may be utilized only for the 
     construction of facilities to support United States military 
     forces in that host nation, or such real property maintenance 
     and base operating costs that are currently executed through 
     monetary transfers to such host nations: Provided further, 
     That the Department of Defense's budget submission for fiscal 
     year 1998 shall identify such sums anticipated in residual 
     value settlements, and identify such construction, real 
     property maintenance or base operating costs that shall be 
     funded by the host nation through such credits: Provided 
     further, That all military construction projects to be 
     executed from such accounts must be previously approved in a 
     prior Act of Congress: Provided further, That each such 
     Executive Agreement with a NATO member host nation shall be 
     reported to the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate thirty days prior to the conclusion and endorsement of 
     any such agreement established under this provision.
       Sec. 8021. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 
     Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, 
     or M-1911 pistols.
       Sec. 8022. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to 
     pay more than 50 percent of an amount paid to any person 
     under section 308 of title 37, United States Code, in a lump 
     sum.

[[Page H6357]]

       Sec. 8023. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available for payments under the Department of Defense 
     contract with the Louisiana State University Medical Center 
     involving the use of cats for Brain Missile Wound Research, 
     and the Department of Defense shall not make payments under 
     such contract from funds obligated prior to the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, except as necessary for costs incurred 
     by the contractor prior to the enactment of this Act: 
     Provided, That funds necessary for the care of animals 
     covered by this contract are allowed.
       Sec. 8024. None of the funds provided in this Act or any 
     other Act shall be available to conduct bone trauma research 
     at any Army Research Laboratory until the Secretary of the 
     Army certifies that the synthetic compound to be used in the 
     experiments is of such a type that its use will result in a 
     significant medical finding, the research has military 
     application, the research will be conducted in accordance 
     with the standards set by an animal care and use committee, 
     and the research does not duplicate research already 
     conducted by a manufacturer or any other research 
     organization.
       Sec. 8025. No more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated 
     or made available in this Act shall be used for any single 
     relocation of an organization, unit, activity or function of 
     the Department of Defense into or within the National Capital 
     Region: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate that such a relocation is required 
     in the best interest of the Government.
       Sec. 8026. During the current fiscal year, funds 
     appropriated or otherwise available for any Federal agency, 
     the Congress, the judicial branch, or the District of 
     Columbia may be used for the pay, allowances, and benefits of 
     an employee as defined by section 2105 of title 5 or an 
     individual employed by the government of the District of 
     Columbia, permanent or temporary indefinite, who--
       (1) is a member of a Reserve component of the Armed Forces, 
     as described in section 261 of title 10, or the National 
     Guard, as described in section 101 of title 32;
       (2) performs, for the purpose of providing military aid to 
     enforce the law or providing assistance to civil authorities 
     in the protection or saving of life or property or prevention 
     of injury--
       (A) Federal service under section 331, 332, 333, or 12406 
     of title 10, or other provision of law, as applicable, or
       (B) full-time military service for his State, the District 
     of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a territory 
     of the United States; and
       (3) requests and is granted--
       (A) leave under the authority of this section; or
       (B) annual leave, which may be granted without regard to 
     the provisions of sections 5519 and 6323(b) of title 5, if 
     such employee is otherwise entitled to such annual leave:

     Provided, That any employee who requests leave under 
     subsection (3)(A) for service described in subsection (2) of 
     this section is entitled to such leave, subject to the 
     provisions of this section and of the last sentence of 
     section 6323(b) of title 5, and such leave shall be 
     considered leave under section 6323(b) of title 5.
       Sec. 8027. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to perform any cost study pursuant to the 
     provisions of OMB Circular A-76 if the study being performed 
     exceeds a period of twenty-four months after initiation of 
     such study with respect to a single function activity or 
     forty-eight months after initiation of such study for a 
     multi-function activity.
       Sec. 8028. Funds appropriated by this Act for the American 
     Forces Information Service shall not be used for any national 
     or international political or psychological activities.
       Sec. 8029. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, the Secretary of Defense may adjust wage rates 
     for civilian employees hired for certain health care 
     occupations as authorized for the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs by section 7455 of title 38, United States Code.
       Sec. 8030. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to reduce or disestablish the 
     operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the 
     Air Force Reserve, if such action would reduce the WC-130 
     Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in 
     this Act.
       Sec. 8031. (a) Of the funds for the procurement of supplies 
     or services appropriated by this Act, qualified nonprofit 
     agencies for the blind or other severely handicapped shall be 
     afforded the maximum practicable opportunity to participate 
     as subcontractors and suppliers in the performance of 
     contracts let by the Department of Defense.
       (b) During the current fiscal year, a business concern 
     which has negotiated with a military service or defense 
     agency a subcontracting plan for the participation by small 
     business concerns pursuant to section 8(d) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) shall be given credit toward 
     meeting that subcontracting goal for any purchases made from 
     qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely 
     handicapped.
       (c) For the purpose of this section, the phrase ``qualified 
     nonprofit agency for the blind or other severely 
     handicapped'' means a nonprofit agency for the blind or other 
     severely handicapped that has been approved by the Committee 
     for the Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely 
     Handicapped under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
     48).
       Sec. 8032. During the current fiscal year, net receipts 
     pursuant to collections from third party payers pursuant to 
     section 1095 of title 10, United States Code, shall be made 
     available to the local facility of the uniformed services 
     responsible for the collections and shall be over and above 
     the facility's direct budget amount.
       Sec. 8033. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense is authorized to incur obligations of not to 
     exceed $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section 
     2350j(c) of title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of 
     receipt of contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait, 
     under that section: Provided, That, upon receipt, such 
     contributions from the Government of Kuwait shall be credited 
     to the appropriation or fund which incurred such obligations.
       Sec. 8034. Of the funds made available in this Act, not 
     less than $22,700,000 shall be available for the Civil Air 
     Patrol, of which $15,426,000 shall be available for Operation 
     and Maintenance.
       Sec. 8035. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     are available to establish a new Department of Defense 
     Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), 
     either as a new entity, or as a separate entity administered 
     by an organization managing another FFRDC, or as a nonprofit 
     membership corporation consisting of a consortium of other 
     FFRDCs and other nonprofit entities.
       (b) Limitation on Compensation.--No member of a Board of 
     Directors, Trustees, Overseers, Advisory Group, Special 
     Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or any similar entity of a 
     defense FFRDC, and no paid consultant to any defense FFRDC, 
     may be compensated for his or her services as a member of 
     such entity, or as a paid consultant, except under the same 
     conditions, and to the same extent, as members of the Defense 
     Science Board: Provided, That a member of any such entity 
     referred to previously in this subsection shall be allowed 
     travel expenses and per diem as authorized under the Federal 
     Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in the performance of 
     membership duties.
       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds available to the Department of Defense from any source 
     during fiscal year 1997 may be used by a defense FFRDC, 
     through a fee or other payment mechanism, for charitable 
     contributions, for construction of new buildings, for payment 
     of cost sharing for projects funded by government grants, or 
     for absorption of contract overruns.
       Sec. 8036. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or 
     property under the control of the Department of Defense which 
     were not melted and rolled in the United States or Canada: 
     Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall apply to 
     any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American Society of 
     Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and Steel 
     Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     military department responsible for the procurement may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions 
     shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 8037. For the purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``congressional defense committees'' means the National 
     Security Committee of the House of Representatives, the Armed 
     Services Committee of the Senate, the subcommittee on Defense 
     of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the 
     subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
       Sec. 8038. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during the current fiscal year, the Department of Defense may 
     acquire the modification, depot maintenance and repair of 
     aircraft, vehicles and vessels as well as the production of 
     components and other Defense-related articles, through 
     competition between Department of Defense depot maintenance 
     activities and private firms: Provided, That the Senior 
     Acquisition Executive of the military department or defense 
     agency concerned, with power of delegation, shall certify 
     that successful bids include comparable estimates of all 
     direct and indirect costs for both public and private bids: 
     Provided further, That Office of Management and Budget 
     Circular A-76 shall not apply to competitions conducted under 
     this section.
       Sec. 8039. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after 
     consultation with the United States Trade Representative, 
     determines that a foreign country which is party to an 
     agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms 
     of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of 
     products produced in the United States that are covered by 
     the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the 
     Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with 
     respect to such types of products produced in that foreign 
     country.
       (2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any 
     reciprocal defense procurement

[[Page H6358]]

     memorandum of understanding, between the United States and a 
     foreign country pursuant to which the Secretary of Defense 
     has prospectively waived the Buy American Act for certain 
     products in that country.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from 
     foreign entities in fiscal year 1997. Such report shall 
     separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the 
     Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any agreement 
     described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement Act of 
     1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international agreement 
     to which the United States is a party.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American 
     Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
     for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other 
     purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       Sec. 8040. Appropriations contained in this Act that remain 
     available at the end of the current fiscal year as a result 
     of energy cost savings realized by the Department of Defense 
     shall remain available for obligation for the next fiscal 
     year to the extent, and for the purposes, provided in section 
     2865 of title 10, United States Code.
       Sec. 8041. During the current fiscal year and hereafter, 
     voluntary separation incentives payable under 10 U.S.C. 1175 
     may be paid in such amounts as are necessary from the assets 
     of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Fund established by 
     section 1175(h)(1).

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8042. Amounts deposited during the current fiscal year 
     to the special account established under 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2) 
     and to the special account established under 10 U.S.C. 
     2667(d)(1) are appropriated and shall be available until 
     transferred by the Secretary of Defense to current applicable 
     appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense under 
     the terms and conditions specified by 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2) (A) 
     and (B) and 10 U.S.C. 2667(d)(1)(B), to be merged with and to 
     be available for the same time period and the same purposes 
     as the appropriation to which transferred.
       Sec. 8043. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense may be used to 
     reimburse a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces 
     who is not otherwise entitled to travel and transportation 
     allowances and who occupies transient government housing 
     while performing active duty for training or inactive duty 
     training: Provided, That such members may be provided lodging 
     in kind if transient government quarters are unavailable as 
     if the member was entitled to such allowances under 
     subsection (a) of section 404 of title 37, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That if lodging in kind is provided, 
     any authorized service charge or cost of such lodging may be 
     paid directly from funds appropriated for operation and 
     maintenance of the reserve component of the member concerned.
       Sec. 8044. The President shall include with each budget for 
     a fiscal year submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, materials that shall identify 
     clearly and separately the amounts requested in the budget 
     for appropriation for that fiscal year for salaries and 
     expenses related to administrative activities of the 
     Department of Defense, the military departments, and the 
     Defense Agencies.
       Sec. 8045. During the current fiscal year, amounts 
     contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military 
     Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section 
     2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available 
     until expended for the payments specified by section 
     2921(c)(2) of that Act.
       Sec. 8046. During the current fiscal year and hereafter, 
     annual payments granted under the provisions of section 4416 
     of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     1993 (Public Law 102-428; 106 Stat. 2714) shall be made from 
     appropriations in this Act which are available for the pay of 
     reserve component personnel.
       Sec. 8047. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act, not more than $119,200,000 shall be 
     available for payment of the operating costs of NATO 
     Headquarters: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may 
     waive this section for Department of Defense support provided 
     to NATO forces in and around the former Yugoslavia.
       Sec. 8048. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     which are available to the Department of Defense for 
     operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items 
     having an investment item unit cost of not more than 
     $100,000.
       Sec. 8049. During the current fiscal year and hereafter, 
     appropriations available for the pay and allowances of active 
     duty members of the Armed Forces shall be available to pay 
     the retired pay which is payable pursuant to section 4403 of 
     Public Law 102-484 (10 U.S.C. 1293 note) under the terms and 
     conditions provided in section 4403.
       Sec. 8050. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     appropriations or funds available to the Defense Business 
     Operations Fund shall be used for the purchase of an 
     investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new inventory 
     item for sale or anticipated sale during the current fiscal 
     year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers of the Defense 
     Business Operations Fund if such an item would not have been 
     chargeable to the Defense Business Operations Fund during 
     fiscal year 1994 and if the purchase of such an investment 
     item would be chargeable during the current fiscal year to 
     appropriations made to the Department of Defense for 
     procurement.
       (b) The fiscal year 1998 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 1998 Department of 
     Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified 
     as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation 
     contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed 
     fiscal year 1998 procurement appropriation and not in the 
     supply management business area or any other area or category 
     of the Defense Business Operations Fund.
       Sec. 8051. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available for use by a Military Department to modify an 
     aircraft, weapon, ship or other item of equipment, that the 
     Military Department concerned plans to retire or otherwise 
     dispose of within five years after completion of the 
     modification: Provided, That this prohibition shall not apply 
     to safety modifications: Provided further, That this 
     prohibition may be waived by the Secretary of a Military 
     Department if the Secretary determines it is in the best 
     national security interest of the United States to provide 
     such waiver and so notifies the congressional defense 
     committees in writing.
       Sec. 8052. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain 
     available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year, 
     except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for 
     Contingencies, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 1998.
       Sec. 8053. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence 
     Agency may be used for the design, development, and 
     deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program 
     intelligence communications and intelligence information 
     systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands, 
     and the component commands.
       Sec. 8054. (a) High Performance Computing Modernization 
     Program.--Of the funds appropriated in this Act under the 
     heading ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', $143,235,000 shall be 
     made available for the High Performance Computing 
     Modernization Program (referred to in this section as the 
     ``program''). Of the funds appropriated in this Act under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', $61,380,000 shall be made available for the 
     program. Of the total funds made available for the program 
     pursuant to this subsection, $20,000,000 shall be for the 
     Army High Performance Computing Research Center.
       (b) Implementation of Program.--The procurement funds made 
     available for the program pursuant to subsection (a) shall be 
     used only for the procurement of computer hardware and 
     ancillary equipment for the high performance computing 
     facilities of the Department of Defense.
       (c) Annual Publication of Program Plans.--Hereafter, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall annually prepare, and make 
     available to the public, an updated and unclassified program 
     plan and program implementation plan.
       (d) Reduction of Acquisition Delays.--Hereafter, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall take such actions as may be 
     necessary to minimize delays in the acquisition of computer 
     hardware under the program.
       Sec. 8055. Amounts collected for the use of the facilities 
     of the National Science Center for Communications and 
     Electronics during the current fiscal year pursuant to 
     section 1459(g) of the Department of Defense Authorization 
     Act, 1986 and deposited to the special account established 
     under subsection 1459(g)(2) of that Act are appropriated and 
     shall be available until expended for the operation and 
     maintenance of the Center as provided for in subsection 
     1459(g)(2).
       Sec. 8056. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may 
     be used to fill the commander's position at any military 
     medical facility with a health care professional unless the 
     prospective candidate can demonstrate professional 
     administrative skills.
       Sec. 8057. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense 
     unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the 
     Buy American Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``Buy American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An 
     Act making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
     Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for 
     other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.).
       (b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person 
     has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription to any product sold in or 
     shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the 
     Secretary shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f 
     of title 10, United States Code, whether the person should be 
     debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
       (c) In the case of any equipment or products purchased with 
     appropriations provided under this Act, it is the sense of 
     the Congress that any entity of the Department of Defense, in 
     expending the appropriation, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products, provided that American-made equipment 
     and products are cost-competitive, quality-competitive, and 
     available in a timely fashion.

[[Page H6359]]

       Sec. 8058. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available for a contract for studies, analyses, or 
     consulting services entered into without competition on the 
     basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the 
     activity responsible for the procurement determines--
       (1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one 
     source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work, 
     or
       (2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an 
     unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or 
     technological promise, represents the product of original 
     thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source, or
       (3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of 
     unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a 
     specific concern, or to insure that a new product or idea of 
     a specific concern is given financial support:

     Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to contracts 
     in an amount of less than $25,000, contracts related to 
     improvements of equipment that is in development or 
     production, or contracts as to which a civilian official of 
     the Department of Defense, who has been confirmed by the 
     Senate, determines that the award of such contract is in the 
     interest of the national defense.
       Sec. 8059. Funds appropriated by this Act for intelligence 
     activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the 
     Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security 
     Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 1997 until the 
     enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 
     year 1997.
       Sec. 8060. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be obligated for design, development, acquisition, or 
     operation of more than 47 Titan IV expendable launch 
     vehicles, or for satellite mission-model planning for a Titan 
     IV requirement beyond 47 vehicles.
       (b) $59,600,000 made available in this Act for Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, may only be 
     obligated for development of a new family of medium-lift and 
     heavy-lift expendable launch vehicles evolved from existing 
     technologies.
       Sec. 8061. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense in this Act may be used to establish additional field 
     operating agencies of any element of the Department during 
     fiscal year 1997, except for field operating agencies funded 
     within the National Foreign Intelligence Program: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of Defense may waive this section by 
     certifying to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations that the creation of such field operating 
     agencies will reduce either the personnel and/or financial 
     requirements of the Department of Defense.
       Sec. 8062. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     resident classes entering the war colleges after September 
     30, 1997, the Department of Defense shall require that not 
     less than 20 percent of the total of United States military 
     students at each war college shall be from military 
     departments other than the hosting military department: 
     Provided, That each military department will recognize the 
     attendance at a sister military department war college as the 
     equivalent of attendance at its own war college for promotion 
     and advancement of personnel.
       Sec. 8063. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     obligated for payment on new contracts on which allowable 
     costs charged to the government include payments for 
     individual compensation at a rate in excess of $250,000 per 
     year.
       Sec. 8064. None of the funds available in this Act may be 
     used to reduce the authorized positions for military 
     (civilian) technicians of the Army National Guard, the Air 
     National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the 
     purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian 
     personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military 
     (civilian) technicians, unless such reductions are a direct 
     result of a reduction in military force structure.
       Sec. 8065. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea 
     unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
       Sec. 8066. During the current fiscal year, funds 
     appropriated in this Act are available to compensate members 
     of the National Guard for duty performed pursuant to a plan 
     submitted by a Governor of a State and approved by the 
     Secretary of Defense under section 112 of title 32, United 
     States Code: Provided, That during the performance of such 
     duty, the members of the National Guard shall be under State 
     command and control: Provided further, That such duty shall 
     be treated as full-time National Guard duty for purposes of 
     sections 12602 (a)(2) and (b)(2) of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 8067. Funds appropriated in this Act for operation and 
     maintenance of the Military Departments, Unified and 
     Specified Commands and Defense Agencies shall be available 
     for reimbursement of pay, allowances and other expenses which 
     would otherwise be incurred against appropriations for the 
     National Guard and Reserve when members of the National Guard 
     and Reserve provide intelligence support to Unified Commands, 
     Defense Agencies and Joint Intelligence Activities, including 
     the activities and programs included within the General 
     Defense Intelligence Program and the Consolidated Cryptologic 
     Program: Provided, That nothing in this section authorizes 
     deviation from established Reserve and National Guard 
     personnel and training procedures.
       Sec. 8068. During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds appropriated in this Act may be used to reduce the 
     civilian medical and medical support personnel assigned to 
     military treatment facilities below the September 30, 1996 
     level.
       Sec. 8069. All refunds or other amounts collected in the 
     administration of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of 
     the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) shall be credited to current 
     year appropriations.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8070. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may 
     be transferred to or obligated from the Pentagon Reservation 
     Maintenance Revolving Fund, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     certifies that the total cost for the planning, design, 
     construction and installation of equipment for the renovation 
     of the Pentagon Reservation will not exceed $1,218,000,000.
       Sec. 8071. (a) None of the funds available to the 
     Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug 
     interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to 
     any other department or agency of the United States except as 
     specifically provided in an appropriations law.
       (b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence 
     Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
     drug activities may be transferred to any other department or 
     agency of the United States except as specifically provided 
     in an appropriations law.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8072. Appropriations available in this Act under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' for 
     increasing energy and water efficiency in Federal buildings 
     may, during their period of availability, be transferred to 
     other appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense 
     for projects related to increasing energy and water 
     efficiency, to be merged with and to be available for the 
     same general purposes, and for the same time period, as the 
     appropriation or fund to which transferred.
       Sec. 8073. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used for the procurement of ball and roller bearings other 
     than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic 
     origin: Provided, That the Secretary of the military 
     department responsible for such procurement may waive this 
     restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes.
       Sec. 8074. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the 
     United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to 
     the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes that is not available from United States 
     manufacturers.
       Sec. 8075. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to lease or charter a vessel in excess of 
     seventeen months (inclusive of any option periods) to 
     transport fuel or oil for the Department of Defense if the 
     vessel was constructed after October 1, 1995 unless the 
     Secretary of Defense requires that the vessel be constructed 
     in the United States with a double hull under the long-term 
     lease or charter authority provided in section 2401 note of 
     title 10, United States Code: Provided, That this limitation 
     shall not apply to contracts in force on the date of 
     enactment of this Act: Provided further, That by 1997 at 
     least 20 percent of annual leases and charters must be for 
     ships of double hull design constructed after October 1, 1995 
     if available in numbers sufficient to satisfy this 
     requirement: Provided further, That the Military Sealift 
     Command shall plan to achieve the goal of eliminating single 
     hull ship leases by the year 2015.
       Sec. 8076. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced 
     by $500,000,000 to reflect savings from reduced carryover of 
     activities funded through the Defense Business Operations 
     Fund, to be distributed as follows: ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army'', $60,000,000; and ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Navy'', $440,000,000.
       Sec. 8077. During the current fiscal year, the Army shall 
     use the former George Air Force Base as the airhead for the 
     National Training Center at Fort Irwin: Provided, That none 
     of the funds in this Act shall be obligated or expended to 
     transport Army personnel into Edwards Air Force Base for 
     training rotations at the National Training Center.
       Sec. 8078. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit, on a 
     quarterly basis, a report to the congressional defense 
     committees, the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate setting forth all costs (including 
     incremental costs) incurred by the Department of Defense 
     during the preceding quarter in implementing or supporting 
     resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, including 
     any such resolution calling for international sanctions, 
     international peacekeeping operations, and humanitarian 
     missions undertaken by the Department of Defense. The 
     quarterly report shall include an aggregate

[[Page H6360]]

     of all such Department of Defense costs by operation or 
     mission.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall detail in the quarterly 
     reports all efforts made to seek credit against past United 
     Nations expenditures and all efforts made to seek 
     compensation from the United Nations for costs incurred by 
     the Department of Defense in implementing and supporting 
     United Nations activities.
       Sec. 8079. (a) Limitation on Transfer of Defense Articles 
     and Services.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     none of the funds available to the Department of Defense for 
     the current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to 
     transfer to another nation or an international organization 
     any defense articles or services (other than intelligence 
     services) for use in the activities described in subsection 
     (b) unless the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of 
     the Senate are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       (b) Covered Activities.--(1) This section applies to--
       (A) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement 
     operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of 
     the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United 
     Nations Security Council resolution; and
       (B) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
     enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.
       (c) Required Notice.--A notice under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services 
     to be transferred.
       (2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or 
     services to be transferred.
       (3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or 
     supplies--
       (A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of 
     all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve 
     components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be 
     transferred have been met; and
       (B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be 
     transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the 
     President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
       Sec. 8080. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense shall be obligated or expended to make a financial 
     contribution to the United Nations for the cost of an United 
     Nations peacekeeping activity (whether pursuant to assessment 
     or a voluntary contribution) or for payment of any United 
     States arrearage to the United Nations.
       Sec. 8081. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to pay 
     a contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense 
     for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an employee 
     when--
       (1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of 
     the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
       (2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated 
     with a business combination.
       Sec. 8082. The amount otherwise provided by this Act for 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'' is hereby reduced by 
     $195,000,000, to reflect a reduction in the passthrough to 
     the Air Force business areas of the Defense Business 
     Operations Fund.
       Sec. 8083. None of the funds provided in title II of this 
     Act for ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction'' may be 
     obligated or expended to finance housing for any individual 
     who was a member of the military forces of the Soviet Union 
     or for any individual who is or was a member of the military 
     forces of the Russian Federation.
       Sec. 8084. Beginning in fiscal year 1997 and thereafter, 
     and notwithstanding any other provision of law, fixed and 
     mobile telecommunications support shall be provided by the 
     White House Communications Agency (WHCA) to the United States 
     Secret Service (USSS), without reimbursement, in connection 
     with the Secret Service's duties directly related to the 
     protection of the President or the Vice President or other 
     officer immediately next in order of succession to the office 
     of the President at the White House Security Complex in the 
     Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area and Camp David, Maryland. 
     For these purposes, the White House Security Complex includes 
     the White House, the White House grounds, the Old Executive 
     Office Building, the New Executive Office Building, the Blair 
     House, the Treasury Building, and the Vice President's 
     Residence at the Naval Observatory: Provided, That funds made 
     available to the WHCA (or any successor agency) for support 
     services for the President from funds appropriated for the 
     Department of Defense for any fiscal year (beginning with 
     fiscal year 1997) may be used only for the provision of 
     telecommunications support to the President and Vice 
     President and related elements (as defined in regulations of 
     that agency and specified by the President with respect to 
     particular individuals within those related elements).
       Sec. 8085. For purposes of section 1553(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made in 
     this Act under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' shall be considered to be for the same purpose as any 
     subdivision under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' appropriations in any prior year, and the one percent 
     limitation shall apply to the total amount of the 
     appropriation.
       Sec. 8086. During the current fiscal year, and 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), funds appropriated under 
     the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'' in Public 
     Laws 102-172 and 102-396 which were available and obligated 
     for the B-2 aircraft program shall remain available for 
     expenditure and for adjusting obligations for such program 
     until September 30, 2002.
       Sec. 8087. During the current fiscal year, in the case of 
     an appropriation account of the Department of Defense for 
     which the period of availability for obligation has expired 
     or which has closed under the provisions of section 1552 of 
     title 31, United States Code, and which has a negative 
     unliquidated or unexpended balance, an obligation or an 
     adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current 
     appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or 
     closed account if--
       (1) the obligation would have been properly chargeable 
     (except as to amount) to the expired or closed account before 
     the end of the period of availability or closing of that 
     account;
       (2) the obligation is not otherwise properly chargeable to 
     any current appropriation account of the Department of 
     Defense; and
       (3) in the case of an expired account, the obligation is 
     not chargeable to a current appropriation of the Department 
     of Defense under the provisions of section 1405(b)(8) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, 
     Public Law 101-510, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1551 note): 
     Provided, That in the case of an expired account, if 
     subsequent review or investigation discloses that there was 
     not in fact a negative unliquidated or unexpended balance in 
     the account, any charge to a current account under the 
     authority of this section shall be reversed and recorded 
     against the expired account: Provided further, That the total 
     amount charged to a current appropriation under this section 
     may not exceed an amount equal to one percent of the total 
     appropriation for that account.
       Sec. 8088. During the current fiscal year the Marine 
     Security Guard Program shall be administered under the terms 
     and conditions of the March 29, 1994 Memorandum of 
     Understanding between the Department of Defense and the 
     Department of State concerning such program and the 
     Department of State shall continue to pay, or provide 
     reimbursement for, Marine Security Guard costs which are the 
     responsibility of the State Department under the provisions 
     of such Memorandum.
       Sec. 8089. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced 
     by $350,000,000 to reflect savings from improved management 
     of spare and repair parts inventories of the Department of 
     Defense, to be distributed as follows: ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army'', $91,000,000; ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Navy'', $32,600,000; and ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'', $226,400,000.
       Sec. 8090. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Air Force shall not introduce any new supplier for the 
     remaining production units for the AN/ALE-47 Countermeasure 
     Dispenser System.
       Sec. 8091. In applying section 9005 of the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-396)--
       (1) synthetic fabric and coated synthetic fabric shall be 
     deemed to include synthetic fiber and yarn and their 
     products; and
       (2) such section shall (notwithstanding section 34 of 
     Public Law 93-400) be treated as being applicable to 
     contracts and subcontracts for the procurement of commercial 
     items that are articles or items, specialty metals, or tools 
     covered by that section 9005.
       Sec. 8092. Trade-off Study of Current and Future Deep-
     Strike Capabilities.--
       (1) The Secretary of Defense shall carry out the deep-
     strike tradeoff study announced by the President to study 
     tradeoffs between bombers, land and sea-based tactical 
     aircraft, and missiles capable of striking targets in an 
     enemy's rear area.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense shall establish an ad hoc 
     review committee under the auspices of the Defense Science 
     Board to establish the methodological approach to the 
     tradeoff study, to establish a broad range of stressing 
     scenarios of interest, and to review assumptions regarding 
     the analyses to be conducted.
       (3) The ad hoc review committee to be established under 
     paragraph (2) shall include among its members analysts who 
     have performed or participated in bomber trade-off analysis, 
     retired military personnel with broad experience in recent 
     conventional warfare operations, and experts on the logistics 
     of both initial deployment and sustaining support. These 
     members shall be selected without regard for current service 
     on the Defense Science Board.
       (4) After submitting its recommendations for the conduct of 
     the deep-strike tradeoff study to the Secretary of Defense, 
     the ad hoc review committee shall continue to meet regularly 
     to review preliminary results of the analysis and to 
     recommend additional variations in assumptions that may be 
     required to illuminate particular force trade-off issues.
       Sec. 8093. Tactical Aircraft Requirement Study.--The 
     Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff shall carry out a joint study under the direct 
     supervision of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council 
     (JROC) assessing future tactical aircraft requirements across 
     service jurisdictions. This study shall determine the best 
     and most affordable mix of weapon systems to carry out 
     different mission areas and shall include recommendations for 
     changes to the planned numbers and types of tactical aircraft 
     to be developed and procured over the next ten years if 
     appropriate. Such report shall be submitted to the 
     Congressional

[[Page H6361]]

     defense committees no later than March 30, 1997.
       Sec. 8094. (a) Consideration of Percentage of Work 
     Performed in the United States.--None of the funds available 
     to the Department of Defense under this Act may be obligated 
     or expended to evaluate sealed bids and competitive proposals 
     for a contract for the procurement of property or services 
     except when it is made known to the Federal official having 
     authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
       (1) a factor in such evaluation is the percentage of work 
     under the contract that the bidder or offeror plans to 
     perform in the United States; and
       (2) a high importance is assigned to such factor.
       (b) Breach of Contract for Transferring Work Outside the 
     United States.--None of the funds available to the Department 
     of Defense under this Act may be obligated or expended to 
     procure property or services except when it is made known to 
     the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend 
     such funds that each contract for the procurement of property 
     or services includes a clause providing that the contractor 
     is deemed to have breached the contract if the contractor 
     performs less work in the United States than the contractor 
     stated, in its response to the solicitation for the contract, 
     that it planned to perform in the United States.
       (c) Ineligibility for Contract Renewal.--(1) None of the 
     funds available to the Department of Defense under this Act 
     may be obligated or expended to renew a covered contract when 
     it is made known to the Federal official having authority to 
     obligate or expend such funds that the amount of work 
     performed outside the United States under the covered 
     contract exceeded the maximum amount of work that the 
     contractor was expected to perform outside the United States, 
     based on the amount of work that the contractor stated, in 
     its response to the solicitation for the contract, that it 
     planned to perform inside the United States.
       (2) For purposes of this section, a covered contract is a 
     contract for the procurement of property or services that is 
     made pursuant to a solicitation described in subsection (a).
       (d) Waiver.--Subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall not apply 
     with respect to funds available to the Department of Defense 
     under this Act when it is made known to the Federal official 
     having authority to obligate or expend such funds that an 
     emergency situation or the national security interests of the 
     United States requires the obligation or expenditure of such 
     funds.
       (e) Exception for Contracts Below Simplified Acquisition 
     Threshold.--This section does not apply to contracts for 
     amounts not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold 
     (as specified in section 2302(7) of title 10, United States 
     Code).
       (f) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect 
     to contracts entered into more than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of title VII through page 87, line 
3, 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 gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?


                     Amendment offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Page 87, after line 3, 
     insert the following new section:


        Prohibition Against Unneeded and High Cost Acquisitions

       Sec. 8095. None of the funds in this Act may be made 
     available for any acquisition program, project or activity 
     under Title III of this Act (except under the appropriation 
     ``National Guard and Reserve Equipment'') if it is made known 
     to the Federal official having authority to obligate or 
     expend such funds that such acquisition--
       (a) has no documented military requirement under 
     established Department of Defense procedures; and
       (b) has a cost per job created of more than $100,000 
     according to documentation submitted to the staff of the 
     House National Security Committee by the military services.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand, as Senator McCarthy from 
my home State used to say, a pork barrel catalog. What happened this 
year is that the authorizing committee asked the various services at 
the Pentagon to prepare a list of projects in the authorization bill, 
by Member of Congress, indicating what the economic impact would be for 
each of the items in the bill in each Member's congressional district.

                              {time}  1645

  They were also asked to estimate how many jobs were created by the 
projects in each Member's congressional district. Again, there is 
nothing wrong with that. But what this amendment says is very simple, 
and I offer it with absolutely no expectation it will be adopted 
because I understand how much pressure thee is on this bill.
  But nonetheless, the amendment says something very simple: It simply 
says if there is a project in this bill and if the military says it has 
no military value, that it has no documented military requirement under 
their formal mission needs statement process, and, second, if it is so 
extremely high in cost, as defined by this pork catalog put together by 
the national security authorizing committee, that the cost per job of 
that project would exceed $100,000, then we should not do it. That is 
all it says.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of the 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  I do so mainly because we are having a hard time figuring out what 
the amendment would really do or what the effect of this amendment 
would be. The way it is written, it is hard to figure that out.
  I do not know what this means, who establishes what, whether he is 
talking about by law, by regulation, by policy. We have no idea what 
the list is that he is waving around over there, the list of projects 
that are so-called pork projects. This could be very disruptive of this 
entire legislation which has been crafted with great sensitivity.
  But I want to make this point, and I wish the gentleman would listen. 
I have discussed it with him before. When the members of this committee 
sat down to prepare this bill to present to the committee, the full 
committee and to the House, we were extremely cautious. We applied a 
number of tests.
  One is, does whatever is gong into this bill have an application to 
our national defense, national security or quality of life for our 
military forces?
  No. 2, is there a requirement for it?
  And, No. 3, how do we do it, if it should be done, in the most cost-
effective way?

  I can assure the gentleman from Wisconsin that nothing in the bill 
that we present today is going to fall into any category of being a 
political addition for some Member of Congress or for some contractor. 
We have been extremely careful not to do that. I say that to the 
gentleman with all sincerity. He has waved this little booklet around 
before. I do not know what is in it and I do not know where it came 
from. We certainly never asked for any information of this type.
  I would have to oppose the amendment at this time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this sounds like a good government amendment and we 
always try to accommodate Members, but on the other hand we make sure 
that it is something that the services need, something that is 
important to the services, before we accept any amendment.
  This amendment is so widespread, and I understand the point he is 
making. We certainly never ask where the jobs come from, we do not ask 
whose district creates how many jobs. We ask what is military 
implication, how does it apply to the threat, how important it is to 
our national security. That is what we ask when we are doing any kind 
of amendment to the bill.
  I would ask the gentleman to give us an opportunity to study this. 
This is the first we have seen it. I have to oppose this as it is now. 
Maybe we can work something like this out in the bill, if the gentleman 
would give us an opportunity to take a look at this thing and work it 
out as we move to conference.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I concur with the gentleman. I think we should try to work 
with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. But the one think I do 
worry about is sometimes there are occasions when Congress says we want

[[Page H6362]]

them to build something or buy something.
  I remember the SL-7 incident where the Navy steadfastly said, ``We 
don't need to have these fast sealift ships'' and Congress said, ``Yes, 
you must buy them.'' They probably did not have a mission statement or 
something like that. Therefore, we would have not gotten the ships that 
were absolutely essential to moving the forces out to the gulf.
  I worry that without knowing the implications of this or having 
talked to the Pentagon about this, and I do not believe this amendment 
was offered either in the subcommittee or in the full committee where 
we would have had an opportunity to really take a look at it.
  I would not forgo the opportunity of trying to work something out 
with the gentleman, but I think this is very dangerous when we do not 
know the full implications.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if the gentleman would withdraw 
this, give us an opportunity to look at this amendment, see what the 
gentleman is trying to do, and see if we cannot work something out.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words and rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to address my friend from Wisconsin who has held 
that list up, which incidentally I have not seen yet, but I as the 
chairman of the procurement subcommittee in National Security requested 
the information from DOD that the gentleman has in that book. I am the 
guy that asked for that information. Although I have not yet received 
my copy of the book, I am glad he has got it.
  But let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that we put a request together 
after we had held extensive hearings, after all the services had come 
in, after the services made their requests for what they needed, and 
the chiefs of the services requested some $15 billion in additional 
modernization above and beyond what President Clinton presented for 
them in his budget. When they did that, we held extensive hearings. We 
had 3 major themes. One of our themes was first to give enough ammo to 
the troops so they could carry out the two-MRC scenario. We plused up 
the ammo accounts with the Marines and with the Army. We put in 
precisely, in those ammunition accounts, what they asked for.
  Second, we wanted to arm the bombers with precision-guided munitions 
because we have no precision-guided munitions to speak of in our bomber 
force today. We put that together.
  Third, we had hearings on aviation safety. After the crashes of the 
F-14s and the AV-8Bs, we said to the Navy and the Marine Corps, ``What 
do you need to make your planes safer?'' They said, ``Here it is'' and 
we went down from there and asked the services to give us their 
request. When they gave us their requests, the bill that we built was 
95 percent, in the additions, 95 percent consistent with what was 
requested by the services. In some cases, I believe the Navy, it was as 
high as 99 percent requested.
  Having said that, at the same time I thought that it was important, 
since our President was going to places like California and standing 
before all the McDonnell Douglas workers and saying, ``My defense bill 
means jobs,'' that they should have additional information, the rest of 
the story.
  The rest of the story is that while the President's bill might mean 
jobs, so did the bill that we were putting together in the Armed 
Services Committee. So I asked our staff to put together the number of 
businesses and the number of jobs that would be increased in the 
defense plus-up that is manifest in the bill before us today. We wanted 
that to be put together by the same gentlemen who put together the 
President's brag sheet that he was using at McDonnell Douglas in 
California and other places.
  That is a fact. It is a fact that defense spending is different from 
foreign aid spending, for example, in that it does produce jobs in the 
defense industrial base and the Members of this House have a right to 
know what that is. But if the gentleman is implying that somehow we put 
together a list after we had gone through and analyzed districts, that 
is absolutely wrong.
  The chairman of the full committee said the most important thing we 
have got here is what the services want. He asked the services to go on 
record. They went on record. We gave them what they asked for. For 
example, in the ammunition account, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] mentioned a few items himself to me that were important 
items, we looked at some of those items, and some of them we were 
responsive to the request because he was right, the services did not 
need them. So we did precisely what the services needed.
  In the ammo account, for example, every single ``T'' that was crossed 
and ``I'' that was dotted in type of munition was given that was 
requested by the Marine Corps or by the Army. There is nothing 
inappropriate about that list. I would be happy to take a look at it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would say to the gentleman 
is that the President went out to California, but what he was out there 
talking about is a program that enjoys bipartisan support in the House 
of Representatives, and that is the C-17, unquestioned military value. 
They had some problems producing it for several years, but they finally 
got their act together and it is now a very good aircraft. I think we 
have got to be careful here in trying to justify defense expenditures 
based on companies and jobs. If we start doing that, I think we get 
into the public works scam.
  Mr. HUNTER. If I could take back my time, I agree with the gentleman, 
but I think it is also important to have the facts on the table. The 
facts on the table, according to the report I have gotten back, is the 
increase in defense expenditures we put in this year, along with making 
the country more secure, provides an additional 200,000 plus jobs above 
and beyond the level that the President was talking about in 
California.
  I think it is important to have a complete record, and I might remind 
my friend that the President did not make that speech to the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff or to a security group. He made it to workers who were 
concerned about their jobs. He was plainly making a pitch to aerospace 
workers to the effect that the Clinton administration is going to 
maintain aerospace jobs. We say fine. We would also like to put on the 
record exactly how many jobs are created by this defense bill.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words and in support of the amendment that has been offered.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I will simply repeat what the 
amendment does, because I do not know how else to make clear that it is 
so simple. What this amendment says is that if there is a project in 
the bill which has no documented military requirement under their 
formal mission needs statement process, and if any project is so high 
in cost per job that it exceeds $100,000 per job as defined by this 
project which was requested by the House authorizing committee, that 
they simply not proceed with the project. That is all it says.
  I make no value judgment about anyone's project in this bill. This 
applies to all procurement except Guard and Reserve. All I am saying is 
that if there is no mission needs statement for the project in 
question, and when they total up the total number of jobs created by 
the project and divide it into the total number of dollars for the 
project, if that cost exceeds $100,000 per job, they do not go ahead 
with it. It seems to me that that is a rational thing to do.
  I did not ask each service to provide this information. The gentleman 
did. I have a copy of a letter from the Navy to a person who I believe 
is his staffer, Mr. Steve Thompson, dated May 13, transmitting this 
information, so he knows as much about it as I do.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the amendment that 
has been offered. What we have here is a commonsense proposal. There is 
concern that common sense if applied to the defense budget might result 
in some untoward conclusion.

[[Page H6363]]

  Certainly we ought to let this proceed as proposed. If indeed there 
is something that the Defense Department has not been able to justify 
that is in the bill, that should be justified, I suggest that there is 
ample opportunity in the conference committee process or in the Senate 
for the Defense Department to identify this.
  But it certainly does not make sense for the United States House of 
Representatives to be appropriating billions of dollars or millions of 
dollars, whatever it may be, for military expenditures that the Defense 
Department has not said are necessary. I cannot overemphasize this. 
Here we are, one day after we have passed a budget resolution which 
increases the Federal deficit from the fiscal 1996 to the fiscal 1997 
years. This is an amazing result, that the majority in this body would 
increase the deficit when we are trying to eliminate the deficit. This 
amendment is but one humble way to try to achieve that conclusion.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from California, the chairman 
of the procurement committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for getting this time for 
me.
  Let me just say that under the formula that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin has offered, that if a job, if a particular defense job 
amounts to $100,000 or more per job, and if it is not requested by the 
services that it should not be authorized and appropriated, let me just 
suggest that under the formula he has offered the F-117 stealth 
aircraft would not be with us in the numbers it is with us today 
because of the fact that program was put forth by Congress over the 
objections of the administration and because it is such a high-tech 
program it cost a lot per job.
  But that aircraft did much more work in the Desert Storm operation 
than any of the conventional aircraft. It had stealth capability. It 
was highly valuable. So we have a very arbitrary equation that the 
gentleman has tried to stick in in an attempt to embarrass the 
Committee on National Security, and I am just here to tell the 
gentleman we took requests from all the services. We had $15 billion in 
requests on system; over 95 percent commonality of the additional 
spending was in fact spending that was requested by the services, and 
ultimately we only put in about $6 billion in additional funds in 
modernization.
  So the services requested $15 billion, far more than we put in, we 
put in about $6 billion, and our budget was put together before that 
analysis was done. We put the budget together and we said we want to do 
the same thing the President does, we want you to tell us how many jobs 
are in our budget just like he goes out and talks about how many jobs 
are in his budget.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if it is true if 
there was such an expenditure, that the administration, the Defense 
Department, could seek a rescission on it under current law. Is that 
not correct?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
absolutely.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what level would the gentleman from 
California feel is appropriate?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
first, here is what is appropriate to this gentleman. What is 
appropriate to this gentleman is to put in the Armed Services bill what 
we need to defend the country. That means we hold hearings like the 
ones we had on aircraft safety, on Army and Marine ammo, on the needs 
of the Navy, on the needs of the bomber force, and we put together a 
bill that we think does that. And sometimes, as in the case of the F-
117, Congress is right and the Pentagon is wrong.
  When we said we need F-117's, they said, no, you can kill the program 
now. We said, no, we need them. So we do not always agree. But the idea 
the gentleman has put forth that the Pentagon is always right and that 
Congress cannot have any different idea about a weapon system, so if we 
are off 1 percent, we are wrong, I think the idea the gentleman puts 
forth is highly invalid.
  I am telling the gentleman again, the increases we put together were 
95 percent requested by the Army, the Air Force, and the Marines.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I just hope we can come to a vote here 
because we are trying to get this thing over. A lot of people have 
commitments and so forth, and I just wonder if we could not get a vote 
here.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I want to give one example of why I am concerned about this 
amendment, since we really have not had a chance to totally understand 
its effect: The tragedy of Secretary Ron Brown flying in an OSA 
aircraft into Croatia, losing his life and that of the crew and those 
with him, because the aircraft did not have certain types of safety 
equipment, including global positioning systems.
  Now, in this bill we provide money to outfit that fleet with GPS, a 
safety upgrade. Now, is that documented by something in the service? 
Did the Air Force ask for it? No. But we put it in and we think it is a 
good add.
  I just think we really need to know who would do the documentation, 
how will they do the documentation. I think there are too many 
questions unanswered in this, and I am like the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], I would like to move along. Maybe we can 
address this in conference.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I do not know whether this amendment applies to, for instance, the 
$200 million that we have put in the bill, the defense bill in the 
past, for breast cancer research. Is that part of the documentation for 
job creation that the gentleman is trying to get at? Is that one of the 
items we will use this criteria against in terms of jobs?
  And my second point is what do we mean by job creation? Does that 
mean subcontracting job and sub-subcontracting job? There is so much 
ambiguity here it is very difficult to understand what we are voting 
on.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Everett] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Everett was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to make the point that on 
the item that the gentleman mentioned in connection with Secretary 
Brown there is, in fact, a request from the Pentagon on that point, and 
that would not be covered by this amendment.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I urge a ``no'' vote 
against this strictly political amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct, Mr. Perry changed the 
requirement just a few days ago, but up to that point they said they do 
not need this equipment and they did not put it on these planes because 
of monetary considerations.
  If we had the Obey amendment in place, if that had been the policy 
and Congress had added the money, to fix the problem it might not have 
been spent. And what bothers me the most is this looks like a line-item 
veto. Giving the Defense Department the ability to go in and pick out 
items it does not want and strike them out without Congress having a 
chance to reconsider it. That is why I think DOD should send up a 
rescission. If it is as bad as the

[[Page H6364]]

gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] points out, they should send up a 
rescission and we should consider it.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would make this point to 
the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Is 
he aware that the administration has yet to request one dollar of 
funding for the Nautilus program, that he has told the Israelis is the 
highest priority for their national security?
  Is the gentleman aware there has been no request for that funding, 
yet we in this bill and the authorization bill are taking the lead to 
provide that funding?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say I find this discussion 
highly interesting and entertaining. The fact is that the item 
mentioned as far as the Commerce Secretary's plane is concerned is a 
hypothetical with respect to this bill. The Congress never put that 
money in. This amendment does not apply to something that Congress does 
not do, it only applies to something Congress does do.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Congress thought these 
planes had the equipment on them. We could not believe the Air Force 
had not put the equipment on the planes. We gave them directives to do 
it. We told them to put this equipment on and they refused to do it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
again, this amendment cannot make up for congressional lack of 
effectiveness, but this amendment does not attack something Congress 
has not done.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman. once again reclaiming my time, I think it is 
a lack of effectiveness on the part of the Air Force and the Department 
of Defense for not having put it on in the first place. They should 
have known, because the equipment is available. They just did not do it 
for budgetary reasons.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield once more, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin is hardly a Member who always takes the advice 
of the Pentagon over the services, but I would simply say that this is 
an honest attempt to try to save some money. For every project the 
gentleman can point out that might be essential to national interest, I 
will show you 50 that are straight pork, and I would urge a vote on 
this amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, once again reclaiming my time, I would 
assume we could again take a look at this list, and I think we should 
try to cut these things out, if they are unnecessary, in the conference 
committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                  amendment offered by mrs. schroeder

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder: At the end of the bill 
     (before the short title), add the following new section.
       Sec.   . The amount of appropriations provided by this Act 
     is hereby reduced by $6,572,000.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes 
and that the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have 
had many people say they want to speak, but because of the confusion of 
the scheduling I do not know if they will get here or not. So I am a 
little troubled about what to do on time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, first off, I thought there had 
been an agreement reached on the 20-minute time limit, is the reason I 
made the request. If the gentlewoman would like me to withdraw it, I 
will do so, but we are attempting, as diligently as we can, to complete 
this bill this evening, because I know that Members have commitments 
for tomorrow.
  Again, I thought we had an agreement on the 20 minutes.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman 
knows, there are three authors to this amendment, and so I hesitate to 
speak for all three. But I think if we could maybe not put a time limit 
on this one, it would be helpful. I do not think it will take a 
tremendous amount of time. I think it is very clear what we are doing, 
but I just hesitate to shut people off if people do come over.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue 
to yield, as I told the gentlewoman earlier in the discussion of this 
on the rule, we would not attempt to deny anyone the opportunity to 
speak, but we would hope that we would get cooperation to continue to 
expedite the bill as well as we have.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is indeed a gentleman and 
has stuck by his word and I appreciate that very, very much.
  Members of this body, my amendment is really quite simple. It is 
different from the one that was in the Record because I just amended it 
to make it in line with the distinguished gentleman from Florida's 
amendment, the manager's amendment, that did cut the spending. So what 
my amendment does now is what it was supposed to do from the very 
beginning. We have changed the numbers to make sure it is right on 
point, and that is it lowers the amount of this bill to what was in the 
blue dog coalition budget. I am one of the people who voted for the 
coalition budget. I think newspaper editorials all over the country 
backed the coalition budget and said that this was a very fair number.
  What is this number? This number is more than the Defense Department 
and the President asked for and it is, obviously, less than what is in 
this bill. this number is what the administration requested plus 3 
percent because we care very much and want to guarantee that the pay 
raise is included.
  I think everyone understands one of the most important things for any 
fighting force is morale, morale, morale, morale, and whatever happens 
we want to be absolutely assured that we do not end up with a shortfall 
for the pay raise. So this is the administration plus a guarantee by 
the 3 percent that there will be money for a pay raise.

  Now, that still leaves megabucks and gigabucks in the whole budget. 
We still end up spending 2.5 times more than all of our adversaries 
combined and, actually, we spend more than all of our allies combined. 
And there comes a point when we begin to say how much more money should 
we throw at this.
  I want to back up, however, and remind people of the debate we had 
yesterday and how difficult it was to get people to vote in the end for 
that budget, because the budget that was adopted yesterday had a higher 
deficit than the one that we had this year. Now, if my amendment 
passes, it would mean that this year's budget deficit would be almost 
equal to the one that we now have. I mean, next year's budget deficit 
would be almost equal to the one we have now. We would still be a 
couple billion more, but is would be down from the budget resolution 
that was adopted last night.
  I think when we look at the coalition budget, when we listen to the 
cries of civility and a bipartisan approach to these things, this makes 
an incredible amount of sense. This was the bipartisan attempt to try 
to come together, and it says we should be spending this money but we 
also must be sure our personnel do not get squeezed.
  Now, if we cannot get a defense budget that will defend this country 
for that kind of money, we ought to throw in the towel.

[[Page H6365]]

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Chairman, we listen every day to debates about children who are 
not doing as well, so we are going to cut back their school lunches and 
cut back this person and cut back that. But when it comes to defense it 
seems no matter what happens, it never ever transpires that we bring it 
down. They have been the sacred cows in this whole budget debate. I 
have pointed out that the British have been affected by the mad cow 
disease, but this House seems to be affected by the sacred cow disease 
every time the defense budget comes to the floor. And I think that this 
amendment that is coauthored by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Minge] and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] makes a tremendous 
amount of sense.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I ask everyone who voted for the coalition budget 
to please stand for what we said we stand for. And I ask every other 
Member to look at this amendment with an open mind. If Members do not 
think this is enough, why is it not enough? Why can the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff and the President not be trusted with a plus-up for 3 percent 
just in case they are wrong? When we look at how we are treating every 
other aspect of the budget, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, and when we 
realize this is over half of the discretionary spending, half, that we 
are debating today, we really need to look at this as sensibly and 
reasonably as everything else.

  So, Mr. Chairman, I stand here proudly with my other two coauthors. I 
certainly hope the body will adopt this amendment. And I think what we 
will find is that we will be moving forward and it will really help the 
deficit. It will put next year's budget much more in line this this 
year's.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a question to begin with. The gentlewoman said 
that her amendment would exempt this cut applying to the pay for 
military. I have read the amendment three or four times now and I do 
not see any exemption in this amendment to exempt pay for military.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, basically, what I said was it was the 
figure that was utilized in the coalition budget, which was the 
administration plus 3 percent. This does not exempt, but what the 
purpose was, was to make sure that there was adequate pay for the pay 
raise. We wanted to make sure that did not come out without being 
covered.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I did not want anyone to 
misunderstand. This did not exempt anything. This could be across the 
board. What would it cut? How about the $475 million that we had to add 
for medical care that was identified by the Surgeon General, a serious 
addition that we made that the President did not ask for; the billion 
dollars that we added for barracks renovation and real property at 
bases; $125 million for breast cancer research and treatment?
  Mr. Chairman, all of these things would be gone, because what we 
would do under her amendment was to allow the Pentagon officials to 
decide where to make these cuts. The items that I just mentioned were 
not on the Pentagon's list, so obviously would be on the top of their 
list to cut.
  So I say we should not spend any time on this amendment. We ought to 
go to a vote and defeat it soundly because it is not workable.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by making a brief comment on the 
remarks of the distinguished chair of the subcommittee. I do not 
believe that we are just giving this to the Pentagon to make the 
decisions and acting irresponsibly in that sense. We certainly have 
ample opportunity in the conference committee process and at the Senate 
to deal with this amendment.
  Second, I would note that the Chair actually reduced the level of 
expenditures by $500 million as a manager's amendment at the outset of 
the debate today. And certainly this change is parallel to the proposal 
in that respect.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct my comments this afternoon to 
the Members on both sides of the aisle who voted against the budget 
resolution last night, because we recognized in that vote that the 
budget resolution actually increased the deficit for the 1997 fiscal 
year.
  This amendment gives those of us who are uncomfortable with a deficit 
increase an opportunity to follow through with our concern. The 
Schroeder-Minge-DeFazio amendment would reduce spending in the 
Department of Defense appropriations by 6.58 billion. Adoption of our 
amendment would reduce the deficit to $146 billion and would eliminate 
virtually all of the increase in the 1997 deficit that was proposed in 
the budget resolution. Here we have a chance to redeem ourselves.
  This amendment would also eliminate 60 percent of the increased 
spending above what the administration requested. And I certainly think 
that it behooves us to listen to the Defense Department and the 
administration when it comes to defense spending.
  Mr. Chairman, we certainly would like to think that wisdom, truth, 
and justice all resides in this Chamber, but on the other hand we 
cannot micromanage an agency of that size. I think that if we exercise 
good oversight function we have played a critical role, but to 
determine the exact level of expenditure and then increase it over what 
the Defense Department has asked I think is irresponsible.
  I also am disturbed when I look at the appropriations bill that we 
considered last night, which was the House agricultural appropriations 
bill. We reduced the outlay for the U.S. Department of Agriculture by a 
very substantial amount over 1996 fiscal year expenditure levels.
  It is certainly something that needed to be looked at, and it was 
done. But at a time when we are at peace with our former enemies in 
this world, the world war is over, why is it that we need to make an 
increase in defense spending above what the Pentagon asks, and at the 
same time cut expenditures in other sectors of our economy?
  I submit that this is not responsible budgeting. We certainly ought 
to treat all sectors of the budget proportionately and appropriately.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind every Member that this amendment 
still allows for an increase in defense spending by $5 billion over the 
President's request. I must confess that I am uncomfortable in doing 
this; however, I am a member of the blue dog coalition and I feel that 
what we attempted to do in the blue dog coalition report was to strike 
a balance between what the administration requested and what the 
Republican leadership is submitting.
  I also feel it is only responsible to attempt to avoid a veto. What 
sense does it make to submit to the President a defense appropriation 
which he has said he expects to veto and then start the shutdown dance 
all over again?

  We certainly ought to listen to the 19 freshman Republicans who voted 
to hold the line on the deficit. This is a common sense compromise.
  In closing, I would like to call to the attention of the Members of 
this Chamber this chart, which shows military spending comparisons, 
U.S. spending versus potential threats.
  We are spending approximately 75 percent of this pie, whereas the 
potential threats to this country are spending approximately 25 percent 
of this pie.
  And when you look at what Russia is getting in Chechnya for its 
defense expenditures, I think you can see that this comparison is not 
irrelevant. There is no reason why we need to continue this massive 
level of expenditures when we find that the potential threats to this 
country are spending such an insignificant amount.
  And I certainly, Mr. Chairman, have a great deal of trust in the 
Pentagon and defense contractors that the money that we are 
appropriating is at least as well spent as the money that is being 
appropriated in those other countries.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think this might be a good time

[[Page H6366]]

to address this issue that we heard all last year, and we are hearing 
it again now, that we are talking about things that the Pentagon does 
not want. That is not true.
  I want to unroll this scroll sometime during the debate, and I am 
going to show you several thousand items that the Pentagon said they 
really needed but could not be included in the budget because they had 
a political number that said they could not go beyond that number.
  Here is what Secretary Perry said when he presented the fiscal year 
1997 budget. He said:

       If there's more money put into the defense budget, I would 
     urge that it be done the same as they did last year, which is 
     not add new program * * * but rather move forward programs 
     that are already in the budget.
       That is what I asked them to do last year, when they were 
     putting more money in. And by and large, they did that.

  And that is what we did this year. So do not come on the floor and 
try to tell our colleagues that the military does not need these things 
or does not want them. They were given an artificial political dollar 
amount and they had to abide by that. We do not have to abide by that.

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Florida for his point, and he makes it so well.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Minnesota who was just talking 
would just listen for 1 minute, we added in procurement about $6 
billion to the request that was made by the services. Now, the entire 
approximately $40 billion in request that was made by the services, 
that is about a 70-percent cut under what we used to spend in the 
Reagan years. That was all requested by the services. So, the base 
budget that was requested by the services was approved.
  We then asked the services, after Mr. Perry said we really need an 
additional $20 billion in modernization spending, we then added $6 
billion after we asked the services what they wanted. They came up with 
a list of $15 billion. The increased $6 billion that we added was 95 
percent requested by the services.
  So if my friend looks at the total procurement bill that we have 
before us right now, less than 1 percent of that bill is congressional 
initiatives that were not requested by the services. And I would just 
ask the gentleman if he listened to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Young], he listens to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and 
other leaders on the committee. The gentleman says he trusts the 
Pentagon. Fine. The Pentagon has 99 percent of this budget, 1 percent, 
like the smart guys in Congress who kept the F-117 Stealth program 
going when the Pentagon said stop; those were people like Mr. Murtha, 
Mr. Young, and other people. Don't you trust your own leadership in the 
committee and in the Congress to even add or even participate in 1 
percent of the defense damage, or do you want to take a total veto from 
the Pentagon? What is the answer to that? Do you trust them?
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, first I notice there was a discrepancy. The 
gentleman said it was 95 percent and now he says it was 99 percent.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. If the gentleman will 
listen carefully to me, I am talking about 90 percent of the add-on. 
The add-on is approximately $6 billion. But that is not the $39 billion 
that the Pentagon sent over to us under the Clinton budget.
  If the gentleman would add all of that together, take 95 percent of 
the add-on of the total procurement bill, that is, everything we buy in 
the modernization accounts, roughly 1 percent or less is done purely by 
congressional initiative. All of the rest of the items have been 
requested by the services.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. And I would ask the gentleman, and I have yielded to the 
gentleman a lot more than he yielded to me.
  Mr. MINGE. The gentleman has asked me a question. I have not asked 
the gentleman any questions.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to get the same courtesy I gave the 
gentleman when he did not want to yield. We have a budget that is 99 
percent put together by the Pentagon, 1 percent put together by the 
members of the defense committees and the Members of Congress. I think 
that is a pretty good balance, and I think the good judgment and wisdom 
of Members like the ones who wanted to see the changes in the aircraft 
that would bring about greater safety, like those who wanted to see 
greater ammunition accounts should be listened to and relied on by our 
fellow Members of Congress. I thank the gentleman.


          modification to amendment offered by mrs. schroeder

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment by correcting the clerical error in the dollar figure. I 
confess to the body I am a math nerd.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder: At the 
     end of the bill (before the short title), add the following 
     new section:
       Sec.   . The amount of appropriations provided by this Act 
     is hereby reduced by $6,572,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Colorado?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I 
would like to point out that the effect of this amendment is to take 
this from a $6 million cut to a $6 billion cut. And I would rather deal 
with a $6 million cut. But to extend the courtesies that the 
gentlewoman will extend to us throughout the day, I will not object.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I owe him a 
plate of cookies.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Colorado?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the question before the Members of the House is quite 
simple. Will the Pentagon be exempt from the cuts which we are going to 
exact on every other part of the Government as we move toward a 
balanced budget in the year 2002, something that is absolutely 
essential to the economic security of our Nation? Is the Pentagon 
spending every penny and has it spent so well every penny in its whole 
budget that it should be exempt and not only exempt but it should get 
an add-on over and above that requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
the Secretary of Defense, and the President of the United States?
  Should they be exempt from procurement reform, prioritization, new 
efficiencies? I think not. I will use a couple of examples. I mentioned 
one earlier.
  In a GAO audit of procurement by the Department of Defense over the 
last decade, there is $15 billion, B, billion dollars totally 
unaccounted for, $15 billion was spent for which no one can find a 
receipt, a disbursement or a purpose, $15 billion. What was it spent 
on?
  Was it spent on essential things, perhaps it could have acquired the 
GPS little handout units and the little laptop computers that will cost 
about 5,000 bucks a plane for the 500 planes in the fleet, $2.5 
million. That would be a tiny fraction of the missing $15 billion, but 
it was not spent there.
  I believe if Congress begins to clamp down a little bit on the 
mismanagement at the Pentagon that they will spend the money more 
wisely and effectively and defend America even better than they have in 
the past, certainly more cost effectively.
  Fifteen billion dollars. If any other agency of the Government could 
not account for $15 billion of spending over the last decade, there 
would be an uproar like we would not believe, but here it is ho hum, 
give them more money. If they cannot account for $15 billion, let us 
increase their budget this year by $11 billion.
  Then there is the warehouse situation. We have done a little bit of 
looking at what is in the warehouses. It is essential that we must have 
more money this year. Well, there is $36 billion of equipment in the 
warehouses that exceeds the 100-year requirement

[[Page H6367]]

of the Pentagon for operations, including wartime contingencies. This 
is $36 billion of wasteful acquisition, things sitting in warehouse, 
vacuum tubes for equipment that no longer exists. They did get rid of 
the leather stock, I believe, for chaps for the cavalry, but there is 
still other things in 10 million cubic feet of warehouses. Yet this is 
the same agency that we are told has to be able to write its own ticket 
that comes forward and tells us what additional acquisitions they need 
with no scrutiny.

  Now, I believe the original request was excessive, given these 
points. But certainly the request before this body which busts the 
budget and puts us on an upward trend in the deficit next year is not 
warranted nor necessary. I believe that the Pentagon, the defense of 
the United States and certainly the taxpayers of the United States, we 
would all benefit if very simply we just said no. You got a lot of 
money over there. Spend it a little more effectively. Figure out what 
you did with that $15 billion and maybe you can spend it again, or how 
about you figure out what to do.
  Let us have a garage sale with the $36 billion of equipment that 
exceeds the 100-year operational requirement of the military even in 
wartime contingency. Maybe there are some antique collectors somewhere 
that would like to buy some of that stuff.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was impressed with the candor of the explanation as 
to how the appropriations subcommittee budgets for the Pentagon. They 
ask them what they want; they give them most of it. That is a pleasant 
way to spend one's time but not a wise way to spend one's money.
  Let us understand a couple of points. First of all, the price of this 
budget, absent the amendment of the gentlewoman from Colorado, who 
spent more than 20 years on the Committee on Armed Services and has 
time and again demonstrated the wisdom of her judgments in this area, 
the price of this amendment being defeated is cutbacks everywhere else.
  We are going to balance the budget. We are going to reduce spending. 
If you continue the pattern of insulating the pentagon and the CIA and 
the intelligence agencies, which are included in this budget, from any 
significant budgetary discipline, and it does not seem to me that it is 
budgetary discipline when the justification for the budget is, that is 
what the agency wanted, if you continue to insult the Pentagon from 
that, then every other area government gets hurt.
  Now there are Members in the House who do not care much about 
environmental programs. There are Members who think that we should not 
be spending as much money to help young people to go to college. There 
are Members who do not like the community development block grant 
program. I assume they can easily vote against this amendment.
  But any Member who has told people in his or her district, I am sorry 
we cannot do more in Medicare, I regret that we have to cut back as 
much as we have in Medicaid, I wish we could do more for this program, 
I am sorry about it, vote against this amendment and you have undercut 
the accuracy of these statements, because if you give the Pentagon an 
additional $6.5 billion because they want it, then that $6.5 billion 
will come from education, from the environment, from public safety.
  Yes, this is a dangerous world. But I believe $6.5 billion could be 
far better spent protecting Americans against crime in their cities, 
against drug-induced problems, against serious environmental hazards 
than it would be against foreign enemies who are already dwarf with our 
military power.
  That is the choice. Do you think people are endangered by hazardous 
waste or are they endangered by crimes, by drugs, or by outdated 
infrastructure, or are they endangered by the countries which 
collectively spend a very small percentage of what we spend?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  I thought of one more thing. The gentleman has such an active mind, 
but there is also the threat of the debt. We could decide not to spend 
it at all and assign it to the debt.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I understand that, but the 
Pentagon wants it. What is debt reduction compared against the desires 
of the Pentagon? The gentlewoman must understand what is going to win 
around here. So I assume we are not going to do that.
  This, of course, is the account in which the magical increasing 
missing intelligence pot comes. You remember that. That was the $1 
billion that we checked into, and we made it $2 billion. Then our 
diligent overseers checked into it and it became $4 billion. That is 
hidden in here. Who knows how much it is?
  You are saying now that, gee, we cannot afford to take away $6 
billion which is what happened when we caught them with money that they 
were withholding. We let them spend it elsewhere. So the first part is 
the real cost of this. Second, let us also retitle this bill. This is 
the foreign aid bill. We spend more in foreign aid in one military 
budget than we spend in all the so-called foreign aid budgets because, 
as was noted, Japan and England and Germany and France and Norway and 
Belgium and all of the other wealthy countries in the world are the 
beneficiaries of those who vote to kill this amendment because none of 
them have military budgets as a percentage of their governments, of 
their gross product like ours. We confer on them this great benefit.
  Of course, there are bad people in the world. But there are also some 
good countries in the world that are the potential victims. They 
understand that they do not have to do things. Virtually, all of our 
allies are making very significant military cutbacks. Why? Because the 
Soviet Union has collapsed and because the Pentagon wants more money. 
Therefore, since we will give the Pentagon what they want, they do not 
have to do it in England, in Germany, and elsewhere.
  This is the subsidy to our competitors economically. It is an 
imposition on every other Government program. It undercuts one basic 
point. People have said we have to tell the American people they have 
to sacrifice, we have to cut back on Medicare. They cannot have Social 
Security. Give the Pentagon everything it wants, and you undercut your 
ability to get other people to accept sacrifice.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Schroeder-Minge-DeFazio 
amendment. This is a sound amendment that should appeal to Members on 
both sides of the aisle. This amendment cuts the bloated military 
budget by just under $7 billion and brings it in line with the 
conservative blue dog budget and closer to the President's budget and 
the Pentagon's own request. Cutting $6,572,000,000 is not a radical 
proposal, not at all. It is one small step for fiscal sanity at a time 
when we really should be taking a giant leap.
  Right now we are considering a defense bill which is loaded up with 
expensive cold war hardware like seven Trident D-5 missiles which will 
cost $267 billion in 1997, and continuation of the Seawolf submarine 
program at the outrageous price of $699 million in 1997. For the price 
of continuing the Seawolf submarine program, Mr. Chairman, we could 
send over 200,000 children to Head Start for a full year.
  Think about it. We waste money on weapons we do not need which in 
turn prevents us from spending money on our children, our families, our 
seniors, and our environment. Those are investments we do need. Just 
last night the majority passed a budget agreement which cuts college 
loans for students, raises taxes on poor working families and 
eliminates the guarantee of health care for low-income seniors.
  Just last night, the Gingrich majority told children: If you are 
poor, do not get sick, do not get hungry, do not get cold, because we 
really do not think you are important. In fact, we will no longer 
guarantee health care for you if you are poor. But, on the other hand, 
if you are a defense contractor, you are really important. This budget 
provides $246 billion for defense programs, $11.1 billion more than the

[[Page H6368]]

President's request and $3.7 billion more than last year's budget.
  Let us get our priorities straight. Let us add back some sanity to 
the defense budget by subtracting $6.5 billion in wasteful spending. 
And for heaven's sakes, let us invest in our children and their 
education, our seniors and their health care, and our families and 
their security while we invest wisely in our military.
  Vote for the Schroeder-Minge-DeFazio amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, with about 10 legislative weeks left in the 104th 
Congress, I think it is a good time to examine the priorities of the 
new majority. The Republicans have relentlessly attacked education and 
health care and environmental protection, energy conservation, crime 
control. The minimum wage remains unlivable, corporate welfare 
unstoppable. The deficit is going to go up each of the next 2 years 
under the plan that was adopted last night while taxes are deliberately 
increased on working families who earn under $25,000 a year. But 
spending on unrequested and unneeded weapons systems is off the charts: 
billions of dollars for new missile defense systems to defend against 
hypothetical or imagined enemies that do not exist, millions for 
further development of the B-2 bomber, many millions more for other 
aircraft and hardware the Pentagon says it does not need to defend 
either our shores or our interests.
  This defense budget is an utter perverse reading of the peace 
dividend the end of the cold war was supposed to produce. It makes you 
wonder who really wants to balance the budget. Makes you wonder who is 
really willing to make tough choices of shared sacrifice.
  Both the President's budget and the coalition budget are fair and 
more human, more honest, more realistic plans to balance the budget in 
6 years. The amendment by the gentlewoman from Colorado brings defense 
spending in line with the coalition's budget, almost $7 billion less 
than the Republican majority's plan. That would leave a full $238 
billion for defense and might open the door for protection for working 
families that the President rightfully demands. If we would do that, if 
we would pass this amendment, we might get a balanced budget agreement.

                              {time}  1745

  Is that not really what the Republicans say they want?
  I urge all of us to take a constructive step to adopt a dose of 
common sense to put our children's future before special interests, and 
the next time we have an opportunity to take a commonsense, 
constructive step on behalf of our children's future, we find it 
easier.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that has been offered 
by the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] 
will be postponed.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] for his work on this legislation and 
for taking action to reduce the funding for the Operational Support 
Airlift. The OSA provides air transport for senior military officials, 
Members of Congress, and the executive branch. Some of these trips may 
be necessary, but many are clearly questionable.
  Mr. Chairman, each year the Pentagon spends $300 million on military 
travel for top Government officials. According to the General 
Accounting Office, roughly $24 million of this amount is being spent 
needlessly by government officials flying military planes rather than 
commercial transport.
  The press regularly reports about abuses by congressional junketeers 
who use military planes at taxpayers' expense to fly to destinations 
such as Victoria Falls, Amsterdam and Bali.
  The Defense Department's inspector general reprimanded a general who 
used a C-141 cargo jet to fly from Italy to Colorado with only his 
personal aide, his cat and himself as passengers. The cost of this trip 
was estimated at $120,000. The general paid the Government $5,000, but 
the rest of the tab was picked up by the taxpayers.
  The GAO has reported on members of the executive branch utilizing the 
military airplanes for personal purposes, like the White House staffers 
who in 1994 used a military helicopter for a famous golf outing.
  If taxpayers are going to pay millions of dollars a year for 
Government travel, they have a right to know exactly who is running up 
the tab, where they are going and why.
  Last year the GAO estimated that the Department of Defense had a 
fleet of 600 aircraft that could be used by the OSA. GAO has estimated 
that the costs for operating military aircraft range from $5,300 per 
hour to $15,000 per hour. Because the cost of operational support 
aircraft is so high, members of the military, Congress and the 
executive branch should be more responsible when requesting trips.
  For instance, many military and civilian officials take frequent 
trips by military helicopters from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland 
to the Pentagon, which is 15 miles away. The cost of some of these 
military helicopter flights is $1,600. A Yellow Cab costs $18 for the 
same trip.
  This bill reduces the funding for the OSA by $68 million. Equally 
important, it calls for a study of the use of military aircraft. I 
believe this action by the committee will help the Pentagon to better 
manage its assets and save substantial amounts of taxpayers' money, but 
I would urge Congress to take an important step beyond this and require 
full disclosure of all air trips taken on military transport.
  In this regard I would ask to engage the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Young] in a colloquy regarding the Operation Support Airlift.
  I have expressed concern about the use and possible abuse of DOD 
Operational Support Airlift fleet. I am aware that the chairman of the 
National Security Appropriations Subcommittee shares my concern and has 
taken measures to reduce OSA funding levels, and I commend him for his 
actions. I am also aware that this bill directs DOD to prepare a 
thorough report on its activities. Nevertheless, I believe Congress 
must pursue this matter further.
  As Congress proceeds to conference on this bill, I would like to have 
the assurance of the gentleman from Florida that he will work with me 
to obtain a complete accounting from DOD of who is taking these trips, 
why, where they are going and the estimated cost of each trip when 
Members of Congress and the executive branch use Government aircraft.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ZIMMER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I would like to thank him for raising this issue and 
respond to the gentleman by saying that in the fiscal year 1996 
appropriation bill we reduced funding for this type of travel by $50 
million. The bill that we have before us today reduces last year's 
level by an additional $68 million.
  I would also have to advise the gentleman that getting information on 
the specifics that he is asking about is not really easy, but we are 
trying, and we have some reviews ongoing. But I certainly expect to 
continue to work with him and others who are interested in this issue 
and continue to do what we can to make sure that whatever is done in 
the way of military transportation is done properly.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his work on 
behalf of the taxpayers in this connection.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am as anxious to conclude this bill as anyone here, 
but I do have a simple amendment that addresses a very serious problem.
  Mr. Chairman, as all my colleagues know, young men and women are 
recruited into the military service with

[[Page H6369]]

the promise that they will receive free health care for life. I can 
show my colleagues dozens of brochures where this is in writing that 
they will get free quality medical care for life. Unfortunately, the 
Government has decided to renege on this contract. Military retirees 
now, once they turn 65, are kicked out of the military insurance 
programs and effectively denied treatment at many military facilities.
  At the time when military retirees need medical treatment the most, 
our Government gives them the least. After age 65, military retirees 
are not allowed to enroll in CHAMPUS, they are not even allowed to 
enroll in TRI-CARE, and even worse they are effectively denied care at 
a military medical treatment facility because they are last on the 
priorities list.
  I have heard countless stories, and I know the chairman of the 
committee has, the chairman of the subcommittee, the ranking member. I 
bet most of the Members of this body have heard countless stories of 
people over the age of 65 waiting all day at a military medical 
treatment facility having younger people than them brought up ahead of 
them. People that come in much later than they have been waiting are 
brought to the front of the line because the policy is, if they are 
over the age of 65, they go to the back of the line, then have to wait 
until everyone else gets their health care. They only get health care 
on what they call a space-available basis.

  So, as my colleagues know, we have got to do something about this. 
Medicare is available to them under Medicare subvention. It is not 
adequate in many ways. It does not cover prescription drugs. Its 
reimbursement rates are simply too low. Our amendment addresses this 
inequity and honors the commitment made to military retirees by 
creating a very limited demonstration project that will allow military 
retirees over the age of 65 to enroll in the Federal employees health 
benefits program. This is the same insurance program that all of us 
have. All we want to do is to make it available to military retires on 
a limited demonstration basis to see whether this will meet the demand. 
We want to determine what the cost will be, how much acceptance there 
will be, whether it is going to work.
  Now, I can go on and on, I have got plenty of compelling arguments. I 
am not going to, because I know there is a lot of support for this. Let 
me just say that the military coalition and virtually every military 
group has endorsed this. I have introduced legislation as well that 
would establish the program nationwide, and that has over 75 co-
sponsors. But this amendment today would simply give us the kind of 
information that we need to make sure we are doing the right thing, and 
we know it is the fair thing, we know that there is some urgency to do 
it because this policy is effectively excluding people that really need 
medical treatment today.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I appreciate the effort that he has put into this effort, 
and I would say to him, as I have in private, that I probably have the 
privilege of representing more retired military who fall into this 
situation than anybody in this House, and I made a commitment to my 
constituents, and I made a commitment to the members of the military 
coalition who I met with just last week to discuss this. We have sent 
the proposal for a demonstration program to the Congressional Budget 
Office. The numbers are being juggled at this point.
  What I would say to the gentleman is that we are going to do 
everything we can to solve this problem. We have a shared jurisdiction 
situation with the Committee on Ways and Means and also with the 
subcommittee of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], but we are going 
to work together. When we go into our conference, we would like to 
address this, do whatever we can because I have the same commitment 
that the gentleman from Virginia has, and we are going to make this 
happen because it has to happen, it is only fair. It keeps our 
commitment that we have made a long time ago to those who served us in 
the military for a lifetime.
  Mr. MORAN. I much appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from 
Florida, and my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Civil Service 
Subcommittee, is on his feet, and he also would have authorizing 
responsibility for this, is very supportive as well, and I know that 
the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], is strongly supportive of 
doing this as well.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
chairman of the Appropriation Subcommittee on National Security, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young]. As the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran] indicated, we have agreed tonight to withdraw this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has 
expired.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and continue 
with my colloquy.
  Again, as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has indicated, we 
have agreed to withdraw this amendment because we have an 
understanding, we believe, with him that this will be addressed in the 
conference committee. I believe the amendment that was offered needs 
further refinement, and by addressing this issue in conference we will 
have the time necessary to thoroughly examine all the ramifications of 
the proposal. It may be necessary, in fact, to expand the demonstration 
projects in the amendment to include all non-active-duty individuals 
eligible for military health care.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the dedication and commitment of 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] to resolving the deficiencies in 
the military health care system and his agreement to address these 
problems in conference. I have the honor of serving as chairman of the 
House Subcommittee on Civil Service, and the issue of improving access 
to health care for military families was a subject of our subcommittee 
hearing on September 12, last year. We have gathered information on 
this important subject, and, as my colleagues know, it is vital to our 
military retirees, their survivors and families, and we ask again for 
the cooperation of the gentleman as this legislation and this bill move 
on to conference in trying to find a solution, and we understand that 
the gentleman intends to cooperate.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, the answer is exactly correct. The same 
response that I made to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. Page 
205 of our committee report, there is a page devoted to that issue, and 
let me add to this further.
  This is just one of the reasons that we added the $475 million over 
the President's budget for medical health care, for members of the 
military and their family, and, by the way, that is one of the items 
that can very likely be cut by the amendment offered by our colleague, 
the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], or the amendment that 
will be offered by our colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Shays], and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. We have to be 
careful. We do not want to give anybody the opportunity to take those 
moneys out of this bill.
  Mr. MICA. I would like to respond, if I may, to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young].
  First of all, we appreciate the gentleman's leadership on the issue, 
the leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]. I 
thank the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran], who has worked with us. Our intent is to provide 
health care to as many folks who served, and their dependents, as 
possible, and that is our sole intent, and we also know the fiscal 
constraints that the gentleman is under. I intend to support him on 
this next measure which would get that, and I do know the circumstances 
of our military personnel and their dependents who do not have this 
health care; visited in Europe and saw, and other places where our 
military, one-third of them, live in substandard housing, and

[[Page H6370]]

I know the damage that this potential cut could do.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will yield further, I would 
like to say this, that it was the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha], the ranking member of our subcommittee, who first raised this 
issue in the subcommittee with the witnesses who appeared, and he has 
been the driver on this issue to get us to where we are. The gentleman 
has our commitment that we are going to continue on this issue.
  Mr. MICA. Again, I thank the gentleman, I thank him for agreeing to 
the colloquy, and I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I want to comment on the gentleman from Florida's threat assessment 
that the amendment of the gentlewoman from Colorado cuts $6 billion or 
the amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from Kansas, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, myself, and others, our amendment would cut 
$1.8 billion from this, and he says this might endanger this particular 
project. Only if you want to.
  Our amendment gives total discretion to the defense appropriators and 
the Defense Department as to where to cut. So I would just make a 
prediction to Members. As we talk about cutting $1.8 billion, we will 
hear people opposing this threaten that it is going to cost about $40 
billion in cuts. Add up how many times that $1.8 billion is going to be 
spent. In fact, a $1.8 million cut out of this $240 billion budget in 
no way, shape, or form would threaten this particular program unless 
the people involved do not like the program and want to threaten it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the $475 million that I just 
identified that we added for medical care for military and their 
families was not in the President's request, so it obviously would be 
at the top of the list of those items to cut if the cutting amendment 
would be agreed to.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would take back my time to point out to 
the gentleman that if the amendment that the gentlewoman from Colorado 
[Mrs. Schroeder] offered passes, you will still have $5 billion over 
the President's request. If the amendment of the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays], I, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], 
and others is adopted, you will have $9 billion over the President's 
request.
  The fact is that you do not have to listen to the President's 
request. So the notion that by cutting $1.8 billion, which would still 
leave it $9 billion over the President's request, we have endangered 
that $475 million, I guess that is the kind of excessive threat 
assessment that leads you to think that you have got to keep pumping 
this bill up. But the fact is that there is no rational connection 
between the two and this is a preview of coming distractions.
  Mr. MURTHA. If the gentleman will yield, I appreciate all the 
compliments we get on what we are doing here. I wonder if we could not 
move along, because I have been in the forefront of health care all 
these years. I do not think anybody has done any more than I have for 
the military health care. Bill Young and I have worked on it 
constantly. So I wonder, instead, if we could just move right along 
here and go to the next amendment here.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Young.
  Mr. Chairman, on page 214 of the report accompanying H.R. 3610 is 
language that says that the committee expects the President to notify 
and consult with Congress prior to any such deployment of peace 
enforcement, peacekeeping or international humanitarian assistance 
operations; is that correct?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to clarify 
and make absolutely sure that this language in no way is an attempt to 
broaden the President's warmaking powers by contravening existing law.
  Under the U.N. Participation Act of 1945, as amended in 1949, 
Congress must give prior approval before the President may deploy any 
troops to peacekeeping operations. His advising us is not adequate. 
This law says that he must get prior approval from Congress before he 
deploys any troops to peacekeeping operations in response to chapter 
VII U.N. resolutions.
  I just want to make very sure that the report language in this bill 
is not designed in any way to change the requirement of this existing 
law.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would respond that the gentleman is correct. 
The U.N. Participation Act requires prior congressional approval before 
the President can submit any troop to peacekeeping or peace enforcement 
operations. So the answer is ``no,'' the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I thank the gentleman for this 
clarification.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments not precluded by clause 
2(a) or 2(c) of rule XXI?


                     amendment offered by mr. shays

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

       Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Shays: At the end of the 
     bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short 
     title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . New budget authority provided in this Act shall be 
     available for obligation in fiscal year 1997 only to the 
     extent that obligation thereof will not cause the total 
     obligation of new budget authority provided in this Act for 
     all operations and agencies to exceed $243,251,297,000, which 
     amount corresponds to the new budget authority that was 
     provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     1996.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
debate on this amendment close in 1 hour and that the time be equally 
divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, I just wanted to clarify that if any amendments to the 
amendment were offered, they would not come out of the hour. We 
certainly, I think, would agree to the hour but just in case any 
amendments to the amendment were offered, they would not come out of 
the hour.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will yield, I would suggest we 
deal with that if we get to it. As we did with the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], we are not going to deny anyone the 
opportunity to be heard.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate that, and I would not object 
if we were talking about 1 hour on the amendment that the gentleman is 
offering, and any amendment to the amendment would have to be dealt 
with separately, that it would not come out of that limit.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state that that is the way the request 
is stated.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation 
of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time limitation on the Shays amendment is 1 hour.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to designate 15 
minutes to my colleague the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], 
who is an equal cosponsor of this amendment for the purposes of 
yielding time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 
15 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the time will be divided 15 minutes 
for the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], 15 minutes for the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], 15 minutes for the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], and 15 minutes for the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

[[Page H6371]]

  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. This is not a cutting 
amendment nor is it an increasing amendment. This is an amendment that 
says that this Congress will authorize and appropriate the same amount 
next year as we have appropriated this year, $243,251,297,000.
  This is an amendment that freezes defense spending for next year at 
the level that it is this year.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3610 and in 
opposition to the Shays amendment. This amendment proposes to cut funds 
in quality of life programs which are in the bill.
  Our chairman, Bill Young, should be praised for putting these items 
in the bill. Our service men and women serve our Nation with great 
dignity, and Congress and the American people should respect this fact. 
Of particular importance to me, and women throughout our Nation, is the 
commitment to breast cancer research, prevention, and treatment. This 
bill provides $100 million to continue the Department of the Army's 
peer-reviewed breast cancer research program and $25 million for 
prevention and education programs. More than 184,000 women will 
discover they have breast cancer this year, and many of those women 
will be members of our Armed Forces or family members.
  Beyond this funding, the committee has restored the budget shortfall 
in the Defense Health Program. Any reduction to this account would 
drastically limit medical services for our military families and 
retirees. The very least we can do is show our support for our men and 
women who serve our Nation without reservation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the funding levels in H.R. 3610, and 
oppose the Shays amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we now have the question as to whether this is a 
Congress seriously dedicated to reducing the budget deficit, 
understanding that that causes some difficult choices everywhere, or 
whether we will, as this appropriations bill does, exempt the defense 
and intelligence budgets together from any significant budget 
discipline.
  Remember, we talk about the entitlements leaving us only a certain 
amount of discretionary spending. We are talking about approximately 
half the discretionary spending. If you go forward and provide this 
significant increase for the defense and intelligence budgets, an 
intelligence budget which found, and let us be very clear, this cut 
would be $1.8 billion from the appropriations proposal, which would 
make it a freeze. It is acknowledged by the intelligence agencies which 
are part of this budget that they misplaced more than twice this 
amount. More than twice the amount of $1.8 billion was kind of lost 
because they have got so much money they cannot keep track of it. So 
that notion that we have got to cut health or cut this or cut that, we 
will hear all kinds of exaggerations. All we are saying to the defense 
and intelligence agencies together is, ``No, live this year with the 
same amount you had last year and you will be doing better than many, 
many other agencies.''
  Reject this amendment, and I think this is too small of a cut, but if 
this amendment is rejected, then you have said, no, we will get into a 
situation where we will reduce the deficit, reduce every other 
discretionary program so the Pentagon can go up and up and up, and your 
ability to persuade people that they should accept sacrifices elsewhere 
will be substantially eroded.
  This leaves entire discretion to appropriators and the Defense 
Department to make this cut of less than 1 percent. I hope the 
amendment is adopted.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would emphasize again that this is a freeze 
amendment. We are not advocating that the Department of Defense spend 
less than we spend this year next year. We are advocating that they 
have a freeze. I am a member of the Budget Committee. On the Budget 
Committee we are allowing entitlements to grow. We are allowing the 
growth of entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. We advocate freezing 
defense spending--at least I do--and we are cutting discretionary 
domestic spending. We are having real and absolute cuts in 
discretionary spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug] for our freeze amendment to defense.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Connecticut and my 
colleague from Massachusetts for leading the fight on this amendment 
today. It parallels the fight we actually tried to do several weeks ago 
during the defense authorization bill. Unfortunately we were not 
allowed that opportunity on the floor to make our case.
  Let me really simply try to argue that there are three points in 
front of us today on this. First of all, I think it is a test for 
Republicans, whether we are going to apply the same kind of scrutiny to 
the Pentagon that we apply to every other Federal agency.
  I heard my colleague from California, Mr. Hunter, come to the well a 
few minutes ago and say, ``Look, we came up with this list of what the 
Department of Defense needs because that's what the Department of 
Defense told us they needed.''
  Do we really deal that same way with any other Federal agency? If the 
Environmental Protection Agency came in and said: We need this money. 
You got it.
  Or the EPA came in and said: We need this money. You got it.
  Or the Interior Department came in and said: We need this money. You 
go it.
  Of course not. We have said to every single one of those Federal 
agencies over the last 2 years, ``We're broke.''
  We are broke as a country. We are hundreds of billions of dollars in 
the hole this year, and we are several trillion dollars in the hole in 
terms of the national debt itself. And so we have asked every one of 
those agencies to operate more intelligently and more efficiently.
  Somebody please explain to me where the Pentagon suddenly developed 
this reputation as the poster boy for Government efficiency. This idea 
that somehow the Pentagon is sacrosanct just does not, I think, 
confront reality.
  Mr. Chairman, my second point is going to be characterized in some 
ways as an attack on our ability to defend ourselves. We are not saying 
you cannot buy bullets. What we are suggesting is maybe you already 
have enough pencils. And we are not saying you cannot buy tanks. Maybe 
you already have enough offices filled with enough file cabinets.
  You are going to tell me in a $260 billion budget, you cannot 
eliminate three-quarters of 1 percent through efficiency standards?
  Folks will say if you do not pass the bill in front of us as the 
Committee on Appropriations wrote it, that means there will not be any 
quality of life, there will not be raises for our service men and our 
service women. Set that money aside, give them the raises, then go back 
and look at the other $250 billion and find another three-quarters of 1 
percent.
  We are not military experts. And so we did not come to the floor and 
say, ``Here is the places you cut in order to do that.'' We came to the 
floor to say, on principle, we have got to ask the Pentagon to live by 
the same kind of standards we have asked every other Federal agency.

                              {time}  1815

  In fact, as the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has correctly 
characterized this amendment, it is not a cut, it is a freeze. We are 
saying they get the same amount of money they got last year, where 
every other appropriations bill debated on the floor over the last 
several weeks and over the next several months we will actually have 
Federal agencies substantially cut. Not freezes, but cuts. This is the 
same money they got last year.
  Finally, I want to say to my Republican colleagues, I think if we are 
to earn the respect of the American public and develop the sense of 
credibility on other deficit issues, we have to apply the same kind of 
standards to the U.S. military and to the Pentagon. To somehow say we 
are going to look aggressively at every program and to say we are going 
to ask Medicare to slow its rate of growth and we are going to ask the 
Environmental Protection Agency to live with less money, and the 
National Park Service to live with less money, and the FBI, and every 
single Federal agency across the board, but then say, wait a minute, 
wait, the only guys who get more money are the folks at the Pentagon 
because they have operated so efficiently and so intelligently over the 
years that they cannot find any place to cut.

[[Page H6372]]

  I find that absolutely incredible, Mr. Chairman, and I think every 
single one of my colleagues should ask themselves, if they are serious 
about deficit reduction and if they want a balanced budget and they 
want to provide a future for our children, then we should ask the 
Pentagon to be subject to the same kind of scrutiny we ask every other 
Federal agency to live with, and we should do it with a vote early this 
evening.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Shays amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time 
is remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 13 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 10 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] has 
15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds 
to say I am struck by how we are told that cutting $1.8 billion could 
cause such havoc. The appropriations subcommittee underestimated its 
own skill. They were just told by the Committee on the Budget cut $700 
million and they did it fairly painlessly. Apparently, they were able 
to get rid of 700 million and America is still secure; no invasion 
impends, no health care has been cut back.
  They could cut 700 million apparently with no problem. I think if 
they worked a little harder, they could cut another $1.8 billion, which 
is still less than 1 percent of the total budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman. I rise to support the freeze amendment. 
That is what this does. It is a freeze amendment.
  Now, it is interesting to me, when we voted on the balanced budget 
amendment there were about 300 Members of the House of Representatives 
who came in here and voted for a balanced budget amendment. That was 
the easy part, come in a vote for a balance budget amendment, go back 
to our districts and say, well, I voted for a balanced budget 
amendment; I want to balance the budget.
  We tried yesterday to cut corporate welfare with very little success, 
then we tried to cut tobacco subsidies with a little more success, but 
we were unable to do it. Mr. Chairman, this defense appropriations bill 
adds close to $11 billion more than what the President requested, $3.7 
billion more than we gave the Pentagon last year.
  Adding $11 billion to the defense budget is the height of fiscal 
irresponsibility; 15 percent of the budget is the defense budget. How 
in the world are we going to tell the American people that we are 
serious about balancing the budget when we do not have the courage to 
make the difficult choices with defense?
  In this particular option, $1.8 billion, as my colleague from 
Massachusetts said, we cut $800 million just with the rule that we 
passed. This is an easy amendment.
  I hear this talk about we are going to cut health care, we are going 
to cut the extra money for the troops and the extra money for 
readiness. This bill appropriates $6 billion more than the President's 
request on weapons procurement. It accelerates the purchases of new 
fighter aircraft and submarines, items that the Pentagon had not 
planned to buy for years. And if they had not planned to buy them for 
years, how in the world will we pay the upkeep?
  It does not make any sense. This budget sinks $858 million, 69 
percent more than the President requested, into the national missile 
defense system.
  If we are serious about balancing the budget, let us not exempt 15 
percent of the budget. Let us pass this freeze amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], a distinguished member of the 
subcommittee.
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the 
distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  I first want to say to both my colleagues, my chairman as well as the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, that I could not admire more the work of 
these two gentlemen in terms of the efforts they make in that Committee 
on Appropriations on behalf of the country. There is not a 
responsibility at the Federal level that is more important, more 
significant to this country and to the world than the work of this 
subcommittee, where we either appropriate the money or we do not 
appropriate the money to keep America strong.
  In my time in the Congress, there has been nothing more important 
that we have done than to lay a foundation that causes us to be strong, 
as the one leader in the entire world. It is the result of their work 
that indeed the Soviet Union eventually collapsed. The pressure it put 
on that process brought an end to the East-West confrontation. I do not 
know how many trillions of dollars that effort has saved this country.
  The price of peace is great but, indeed, the price of not having it 
could be much, much greater. To suggest that we should continue to 
reduce this budget is almost laughable if it was not so important. 
Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, over the last 5 years we have reduced 
these budgets not by a billion dollars discussed here, but by $100 
billion. And over those same years, every other program of much less 
significance has been increased beyond inflation by the very people who 
do not want to support defense.
  It is time to recognize that this is one of the critical 
responsibilities of the Federal Government. It is appropriate for the 
Congress to go forward with this spending. Indeed, the job being done 
here should be commended; it certainly deserves our support.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Connecticut for 
yielding me this time. I think this is a very important amendment not 
only because of the money involved, but I think because of the thought 
process that it goes into when we vote on these amendments.
  As I interpret this amendment, what we will be doing rather than 
spending $245 billion, we will be spending $243 billion. That seems to 
me to be a rather modest cut.
  The speaker before had mentioned that we spent a lot of money on 
defense and the Soviet Union therefore is no longer. One of the reasons 
the Soviet Union fell is not because we spent a lot of money on 
defense, but because of what technology did in the Soviet Union.
  But it is true we spent a lot of money to keep our country strong. I 
served in the Army; I served on the board at West Point. I am very 
partial to our military. But there is a time when we start asking 
ourselves why are we spending these billions?
  No one here has come to the well, now that the Soviet Union is no 
longer, no one has come to the well and said why are we spending this 
money; to defend ourselves from who? Who is the enemy? Even with this 
amendment we are spending $243 billion. That is a lot of money.
  If we want to protect the United States of America, do not build more 
planes or more ships. We had a hearing today. In Odessa, in the 
Ukraine, there is no longer communism there. They do not have school 
from December through March. Why? Because there is not enough heat for 
the schools. They do not have pens in the schools. They do not have 
paper. They are here in the United States looking for old books and 
textbooks to send to Odessa so the kids have something to go to school 
with, so the kids have something to write on, and we are spending 
billions of dollars in defense.
  If we want to do something in defense of America we should start 
sending some textbooks, sending some pencils, sending some school 
supplies to Odessa and to the regions in that part of the world. Do not 
send more missiles. We are spending billions of dollars to help the 
people in the Ukraine destroy their weaponry and over here we are 
building more weaponry. It does not make sense.
  The problem, as I see it, is one of thinking. It is difficult to have 
change.

[[Page H6373]]

We see that in our society today. The most difficult thing to do is to 
change our way of thinking. I have been here in the Congress for 18 
years. When I came here we had a Soviet Union. I voted for all the 
defense spending. But that enemy is gone. It is a different era, it is 
a different time. We have to bring some new thinking to the world.
  It is a different world and we have to acclimate to the world we are 
moving into and that we are in today. The world we are in today is one 
of economic competition, not more and more military planes and ships. 
What are we going to do with more subs that we will have? Who are we 
defending ourselves against?
  I know it is difficult to bring in new thinking, to change one's 
thinking, but this is what we have to do and that is why this amendment 
is important. It is not only that we are saving a couple billion 
dollars, but we have to have a different mental attitude, a different 
thinking in this Congress. We are not acclimating to the new world.
  We are like the old Communists trying to get back in power against 
Yeltsin in Russia today. We have to have some new thinking, and this 
amendment goes in that direction. That is why it is important.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ 
minutes, because I want to comment on this notion that defense and 
intelligence is somehow an obligation different than every other.
  In this budget, remember the intelligence agencies, for instance, 
have now gotten into economic intelligence. The budget does not just 
talk about guns and ships and men and women in uniform. This funds the 
intelligence agency, where we have been told the intelligence agencies 
have decided to do economic analysis. I am glad they are, but is 
economic analysis in the intelligence budget of a qualitatively 
different nature from economic analysis elsewhere so that it should be 
exempted from any kind of budget scrutiny? Because all this is a 
freeze. All we are saying is they do not get more than they got last 
year. It is a freeze, not a cut, that we are advocating.
  Let us talk about other Government functions; the FBI, faced in 
Montana with a difficult situation. We are told in the Judiciary that, 
yes, they did not have quite as many agents to investigate church 
burnings. We were going to adjourn temporarily to deal with the 
terrible issue of church burnings. I think putting a stop to church 
burnings is a very significant Federal responsibility. That takes well-
financed Federal agencies.
  What about Immigration protecting our borders? What about the problem 
of drug-induced crime? What about the problem of terrible toxic dumps? 
We have had to slow down the money we put into reducing hazards where 
small children live because we have said to people we do not have 
enough money.
  All we are saying is, yes, defense is a very important function. So 
is domestic law enforcement. So is taking poison away from small 
children. So is having adequate control of our borders. But we cannot 
do all of it to the extent that we would like. And a freeze, giving the 
Defense Department the same amount of money this year in this budget as 
they had in the year before, given the trends the gentleman from 
Wisconsin quite thoughtfully pointed out, given the fact of the 
diminution in the exterior threat, indeed if we look at America today 
compared to 8 years ago, where has the threat to our security gotten 
worse? I think it is more domestic than exterior.
  Frankly, I think with the collapse of the Soviet Union, we are 
somewhat safer internationally than we were before. I wish we could say 
the same about crime and about environmental problems. So does it make 
sense to exempt from the process of freezing and discipline the foreign 
area, where we are almost certainly safer, and take out even more from 
the domestic area where the threats sadly are even greater?

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I serve 
as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, and I know where the cuts in our work 
force are taking place. We have heard of 273,000 employees downsized; 
80 percent of the cuts in this administration have come out of the 
civilian defense force.
  We just heard the last speaker say, What is the threat? The threat is 
we have had the largest arms sale in the history of the world, and we 
have missiles, and we have subs, and we have all kinds of weapons. Pick 
up the newspaper today and we see the potential of the threat. And our 
No. 1 responsibility under the Constitution is what? To provide for the 
defense of this country. It does not say to get into all these 
programs.
  It is no problem for us to come here or this administration to come 
here and spend $2 billion on Haiti; $2 billion on Somalia; another 
billion in Rwanda; Bosnia, $5 to $6 billion. And then we talk about a 
missile defense of $5 billion. We are really standing still. We are 
losing ground.
  Mr. Chairman, two-thirds of our money to three-quarters of it is on 
salaries and retirement benefits. We are now paying more on interest on 
the national debt than we are in real dollars for our national 
security, our No. 1 responsibility under the Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to err. We cannot afford as a Congress 
to make a mistake. That is the threat. That is where the money is being 
spent and that is our obligation under the Constitution.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining, 
please?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 7 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 8 
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] has 
15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
I know that there are a lot of folks who believe in the need to balance 
the budget, and I take second place to no one in that belief. The fact 
is we do need to balance the budget, that our children and our 
grandchildren are going to be paying for our profligacy if, in fact, we 
do not start getting our spending in line with our in-flow.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that for the last 40 years we have been 
spending far too much, running deficits of $100 billion a year, $200 
billion a year, $300 billion a year, and the interest within the next 
12 to 18 months, the interest on the debt that we have accumulated, 
that $5 trillion plus debt that has been accumulated over the years, 
will soon exceed what we spend on the defense of this Nation.
  For the first time in the history of the country, our No. 1 priority, 
providing a defense for our people, providing security for every man, 
woman, and child in this country, will come second to paying interest 
on the debt, interest on the borrowings that we have had in order to 
just pay for government.
  So there is no doubt that we have got to get our budget under 
control. But the fact is that in discretionary spending in the last 
year and a half, we have saved roughly $43 to $50 billion under what 
was appropriated 2 years ago, and by the end of this appropriations 
season we will have saved about $60 billion under what was appropriated 
2 years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, if Members look at the trend line for what President 
Clinton would have asked this Congress to spend had we not had the 
change in Congress that we have had, the savings have run about $80 
billion.
  Mr. Chairman, we are succeeding in getting the discretionary portion 
of the budget under control. We are losing the battle still, because 
without the President's agreement, we cannot get his consent to get 
entitlements or the mandatory portion of the budget under control. That 
is no reason, absolutely no reason to say well, therefore, we should 
take extra savings out of the hide of the defense of this Nation.
  The fact is that we need a ballistic missile defense. That is still 
in contention. It is opposed by Members of the House, it is opposed by 
Members of the Senate, and it is opposed by the President of the United 
States. Oh, he says

[[Page H6374]]

we need to work on the development of a system, but he says we do not 
want to deploy one. I happen to disagree with him. I think it is one of 
the few threats that the American people face. It is a dangerous world 
when we look at North Korea, when we look at China and the 
technological advances of China, when we look at the Iranians and the 
Muslim governments.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, when we look at the advances of a 
hostile world out there, we begin to understand that if America does 
not prepare for what threats might develop in the future, that we may 
well find ourselves underprepared and not ready for those threats when 
they occur. That would be a disaster. We owe it to our troops, we owe 
it to our people to be secure.
  As this chart shows, Mr. Chairman, we actually, with the current 
proposed spending, after we take off medical spending and the pay raise 
that has been built into the system, we are actually going down under 
last year. When the Joint Chiefs have said we actually need an extra 
$15 billion in weapons modernization, we are not giving them the $15 
billion in weapons modernization. We are not even keeping even with 
where we were last year.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut us by an additional $2 
billion. That is unwise, it cuts our seed corn so that we cannot sow 
seeds for the future and be prepared. It will leave us ill prepared to 
meet the threats of the 21st century, and I urge the defeat of this 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I am learning the lexicon. Sometimes a freeze is a cut, 
and sometimes a freeze is a freeze. A freeze is a cut when it is for 
some programs and a freeze is not a cut or is just a freeze for the 
Pentagon.
  Mr. Chairman. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Luther].
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to 
freeze Department of Defense spending at the fiscal year 1996 level.
  In the past year and a half we have seen some progress in reducing 
our country's deficit, but not nearly enough. With the budget crisis 
facing this Nation, we must look for every single opportunity we have 
to reduce the deficit. And we simply cannot justify spending more on 
defense than our own military experts believe is necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been elected to this body to exercise judgment, 
common sense, and courage to make the hard choices necessary to achieve 
a balanced Federal budget. Freezing military spending would demonstrate 
our collective commitment to getting our Nation's fiscal house in 
order. But more importantly, it will set the stage for asking the 
American people to make sacrifices in other important budget areas.
  It is much easier to discuss the idea of shared sacrifice with senior 
citizens, children, and hardworking American people when we can assure 
them that all Federal programs and agencies are facing the same budget 
constraints.
  The American people know it is wrong to ask them to share the pain of 
balancing the budget when a big part of the budget, the military 
budget, is being increased. The bottom line is simple, and we should 
know it by now after everything we have gone through in the last year 
and a half. If we are serious about balancing the budget of this 
country, it is essential that every Federal program and Federal agency 
share in the sacrifice, including the Department of Defense.
  Mr. Chairman, let us show the American people that we really are 
committed to fiscal responsibility. Let us apply the same belt 
tightening to the military budget that we applied to the rest of the 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow House Members to vote for this 
amendment and freeze military spending at the 1996 level.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] in support of the amendment to freeze defense.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to freeze defense 
spending at last year's levels. It is no big secret in this Nation that 
elections are coming up in November of this year and I have become 
accustomed to hearing an awful lot of demagoguing. I hope this 
amendment passes so that there will be no demagoguing come the fall 
elections this year about defense spending increasing.
  Mr. Chairman, if we pass this amendment, defense spending is frozen. 
Period. It is not an increase or decrease. It is frozen, period. And 
there should be no demagoguing going into the fall elections after we 
pass this amendment. This amendment freezes defense spending at last 
year's level.
  Last year's level was $243 billion. Next year's level would be $243 
billion if this is passed. What about defense spending and where does 
this rate in priorities of the Nation? I think defense spending is one 
of the highest priorities of the Nation and should be treated that way. 
But does that mean defense spending should not be treated with the same 
scrutiny that all other parts of the budget are?
  Mr. Chairman, I personally think we need to develop a missile defense 
system for this Nation. Many of the American people do not realize that 
if somebody launches a missile against the United States of America, we 
have no ability to shoot that missile down and to protect our own 
Nation. So, I think we do need to develop a missile defense system.

  If we freeze defense spending, how can we go about developing a 
missile defense system? Well, we go at the defense budget the same way 
we have gone after all the other parts of this budget. We find the 
programs that are not absolutely essential and we take money from those 
programs that are not absolutely essential and we redirect the funds 
into the programs that are the most important.
  Mr. Chairman, my recommendation is I think we move to a high-
technology military. I think we use technological advancements the best 
we possibly can. We develop the systems that are necessary to preserve 
and protect this Nation for our children.
  But when we are doing that, at the same time we have to retire planes 
that are too old to service properly, planes that are too dangerous and 
other equipment that is too old, and properly bring down the support 
for that equipment that we no longer need with a high-technology 
military.
  What is happening in this amendment? Defense spending will be frozen. 
The National Taxpayers Union supports it, and I would like to quote 
their letter directly. It says, ``Congress has committed to reining in 
wasteful spending. We cannot afford to increase military spending if we 
are to gain control of our Federal deficits and achieve a balanced 
budget.''
  Last night on the floor of the House of Representatives we had a very 
interesting debate. The vote outcome indicated that we in this body 
believed that we have to have an $8 billion increase in the deficit 
next year.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to my colleagues that the 
passage of this amendment allows us to move $1.8 billion closer to a 
balanced budget. I would like to conclude my remarks this evening by 
encouraging the people in this body to do what is right for the future 
of our Nation, to do what is right for our children's future.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, move us closer to a balanced 
budget. We are $5.2 trillion in debt. That is $20,000 for every man, 
woman, and child. It is time we move closer to a balanced budget. I 
encourage the support of this amendment which simply freezes defense 
spending.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington, [Mr. Dicks], a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure my colleagues 
have not forgotten a little history here. I have heard a lot of talk 
about the defense budget not having been cut. I want to say that is the 
most ridiculous thing I have heard all night tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, we have cut the defense budget by $100 billion a year 
since 1985. When we take today's budget, it would have been $350 
billion. Today, it is $250 billion. We have cut procurement by 70 
percent. The Joint Chiefs have just written a letter to Secretary Perry 
saying that we are short annually $20 billion in procurement.

[[Page H6375]]

                              {time}  1845

  We have downsized the military since the gulf war dramatically. In 
the gulf war we had 1 million men in the U.S. Army. Today we are down 
at 495,000. And we are operating at a higher op tempo than at any point 
between the Vietnam war and the gulf war.
  We are sending these kids, these young men and women in the military, 
out more often to more places. The op tempo has never been higher. To 
say in the face of that evidence that we do not need to do more for 
defense is simply incorrect. We are operating in a very fragile 
situation here. We added about $6 billion to procurement. That takes us 
up to $44 billion. The Joint Chiefs say that we need to be at $60 
billion, and Secretary Perry has admitted the fact that we have got a 
major shortfall in procurement. This budget does not really come close 
to meeting the legitimate requirement.
  Now, I understand my colleagues who say we should be doing more on 
domestic priorities. I wish we could do more in domestic priorities. 
But if you cut the money out of this defense budget, it is not going to 
go over and help HEW or other bills. It is going to go to deficit 
reduction, which is a very important issue. And I do not favor tax 
cuts, other things that are part of the other side's budget that will 
make the deficit situation worse. But to say that we have not cut 
defense, we have cut defense more than any other discretionary spending 
issue in the budget. Nothing has been cut more than defense over the 
last decade.
  The requirements today on the military are major. So I urge my 
colleagues not to forget history here. We have leveled this off for the 
last couple years. We have not really done what is necessary. I just 
urge Members not to take this amendment, because it will make the job 
even more difficult to try and have adequate procurement funding for 
the equipment that our services need. We are going to have a major 
problem out there in the future if we do not have adequate funding for 
procurement.
  I urge Members to stay with this budget. It is not perfect, but it is 
certainly a step in the right direction. And to say that we have not 
cut defense is just ludicrous.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of the gentleman who just spoke. We cannot cut this defense 
budget anymore.
  It is interesting in all this debate, not much has been said about 
the soldier. The first place that you cut, the easiest place that you 
cut is from the soldier, himself or herself from those who are on the 
high seas, who keep the airplanes flying. We should not forget those 
because they are the first to be cut in an event of a cut such as this 
amendment would provide.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Let me say to my good friend from Washington, I do not disagree with 
his history. It is his mathematics that I want to focus on. The 
gentleman is the most honest advocate of increased military spending. 
He says the military budget would be $340 billion. But it was never in 
dollars more than about 200 billion.
  What did he do? He used an inflation adjusted figure and that is at 
the heart of this discussion. We are talking about dollars being 
dollars. The gentleman from Washington says, it is a cut in part 
because we have not keep up with inflation. So I ask, particularly 
Members on the other side, if that is the accounting they want to go 
back to, OK. But understand that that is the basis for the gentleman 
from Washington's argument.
  He talks about a reduction from $340 billion, but we never got to 
$340 billion. It is the inflation adjustment.
  This is a freeze. This is the same dollars. That is the issue here. 
Are we going to adopt a whole different set of accounting for the 
military? My friend says, 340, understand that that is getting you into 
inflation adjusted accounting. And if you do not keep up with 
inflation, it is a cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, old habits break hard. That is as true of 
nations as it is of people. We are in the habit of spending enormous 
amounts of money on the military budget. Right now we are spending 
approximately the same amount as the next 10 nations combined.
  It is simply a prudent thing to freeze our defense spending at its 
present level. Some might argue that we ought to go far beyond that and 
reduce the military budget substantially. There are people in this 
town, responsible people who follow the military expenditures 
intimately, who would argue that you could safely cut $50 billion out 
of the military budget without affecting the security of this country 
one iota. No one there is proposing anything like that. They are simply 
proposing that we freeze military spending at its present level so that 
we can begin to establish some new priorities.
  Our priorities approximately have been to spend for the military, for 
the Second World War and for the cold war. All of that is behind us 
now. The major threats to our countries are within.
  We have schools in this country that are falling apart. We have 
children who are not getting decent education. We have people who need 
health care. We have roads and bridges which are falling apart. Half of 
the bridges in this country are below standards, below safety 
standards. Everywhere we look the basic infrastructure of this country 
is in dire need. We continue to pour more and more money into larger 
and larger military budgets against an enemy that is no longer extant. 
They are gone. We have beat them. They are defeated. They are not here 
anymore.
  This kind of military has got to be brought in line. We have to, this 
Congress has got to be given the opportunity to establish new 
priorities, reasonable priorities that meet the needs of our country. 
We have got to begin to focus more approximately on our domestic needs.
  I have just mentioned a few. They are legion. They go far beyond 
those few that I have just mentioned. But the best priorities of this 
country are hurting and wanting, and we are not treating them 
appropriately. This amendment is reasonable. We should freeze military 
spending and refocus our priorities appropriately.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is 
recognized for 2\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear 
again about what we are discussing. The gentleman from Washington was 
very honest. He said he does not think this budget is enough. I will be 
honest and say that, even if this amendment passes, I think it will be 
too much. I asked for a realistic threat assessment. I asked the same 
intellectual and mathematical standards be applied to the Pentagon as 
elsewhere. We do not do enough with the FBI. We do not do enough to 
reduce serious hazardous weight. We do not do enough to improve air 
traffic safety. We do not do enough to provide health care for older 
people.
  We are about to tell older people they will have to take some 
reduction in the kind of health care that is available to them. You 
cannot exempt one area from that. If you reject this amendment, that is 
what you do. This amendment does not cut the Pentagon. It cuts it from 
the inflation adjusted figure which I thought we were not using 
anymore.
  This amendment says the Pentagon and the intelligence entities. Let 
us be clear, not just the Pentagon, It is all the intelligence agencies 
as well. They will get the same amount of money this year as they had 
last year. Unlike almost any other agency of government, they will be 
held harmless against the reductions.
  Now look at the threats in the world. Yes, we have Iran and we have 
Iraq. We had them when we had the Soviet Union as well. I do not 
believe that they are at this point a greater threat than the 
collectivity of crime, hazardous waste, air traffic problems, 
terrorism. We have serious problems here at home as well. Here is what 
we do if we reject this amendment. We say to the wealthy European and 
Asian nations of this world, do not worry about defending yourselves 
because that is what we are talking about here. When we talk about a 
two-war strategy, had we

[[Page H6376]]

talked about the broad projections of American power, we are talking 
explicitly in defense planning of saying to Europe and Asia, those 
prosperous areas of the world, you need not spend very much on your own 
defense. We will do it. Save your money to become more efficient. Save 
your money so you can outcompete us.
  Let us adopt this amendment as a beginning of a rational decision to 
deal with military spending in the same way that we should deal with 
other spending.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the Members, this is an across-
the-board cut. We have rejected several specific cuts. Over the years 
we have cut substantial amounts from defense. The threat has changed 
dramatically. I think this would be a mistake for us to now freeze the 
defense spending at this level.
  We go to conference, we may have to make some more adjustments. All 
of us know how difficult it is to make sure the troops are taken care 
of, make sure the threat is taken care of. All of us work diligently 
listening to hearings, listening to what the military wants. They have 
long lists of what they would like. But in order to keep our military 
ready to respond and our National Guard and Reserve ready to respond, 
we cannot take another cut at this point as we negotiate through this 
bill. So I would urge Members to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a member of 
the subcommittee.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding time to me. I have been sitting in my office listening to this 
debate. I felt compelled to come here to the floor as a member of this 
subcommittee who sat through the hearings day after day, moment after 
moment, listening to the needs expressed by the military for our future 
readiness and our current readiness.
  I want to speak to my Republican freshman colleagues. Be very careful 
about what we do here. This is a bad amendment. This is something that 
is going to threaten, in my judgment, the future of this Nation. Think 
back just recently when we were so proud in this country to have our 
military forces be able to go to Bosnia and rescue Scott O'Grady, a 
constituent of mine from Spokane, WA. Think back how we felt in 1978 
and 1979 when we had the fiasco in our military problems in the Iran 
rescue attempts. All the reason for that success in the Scott O'Grady 
case is because we are prepared.
  We have to be prepared for the future. This is a dangerous world. We 
have heard it time after time in our subcommittee. This is a dangerous 
amendment. In my judgment, my colleagues, we ought to reject it very, 
very strongly.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] is 
recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I believe with all my heart and soul, if you 
tell the American people the truth, they will have you do the right 
thing. If you tell your colleagues the truth, they will have you do the 
right thing, too.
  It is truthful, it is very truthful, as the opponents of this bill 
point out, there have been cuts in defense. In 1990, we appropriated 
$286 billion. In 1991, $268 billion. In 1992, $269 billion. In 1993, 
$253 billion. In 1994, we spent, appropriated $240 billion. Since that 
time, 1995, $243 billion, 1996, the budget we are in now, $243 billion.
  This amendment is saying that we should not cut from defense anymore. 
We should not add to defense anymore. We should spend $243 billion. It 
is in truth a freeze.
  Now, it is important to point out that, when we took over, I speak 
primarily to my Republican colleagues and to those who might be 
watching on TV, especially to the staff, when we took over, we had a 
rescissions bill that cut $20 billion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman should address his remarks to the Chair 
and not to the audience.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, none of it was cutting defense. We were 
cutting discretionary domestic spending. We added back $11 billion; 
some of it went to defense, for very necessary things.
  In 1996, the President wanted to spend $7 billion more than 1995 in 
discretionary spending. We spent $23 billion less. All cuts to domestic 
discretionary spending. No cut to defense. We cut HUD $6.3 billion from 
1995 to 1996. EPA we cut $713 million. FEMA we cut $143 million. The 
Department of Education, we cut $1.5 billion. NASA, we cut $473 
million. The National Science Foundation, we cut $141 million. The 
summer youth program, we cut $185 million. We cut from legal services 
$122 million. We did cut domestic spending. We have to be truthful 
about it. We did not cut Medicare. We did not cut Medicaid. We allowed 
the student loan program to grow. We did not cut the earned income tax 
credit. That is all going up.

                              {time}  1900

  Entitlement are going up under our budget. We are just slowing the 
growth. Domestic spending, nondefense spending, is going down. We are 
cutting it. And some of us happen to serve on those committees where we 
would have liked to have spent more, but we knew we had to cut to 
balance this budget in 7 years, and I just urge my colleagues to 
recognize that we need to get our financial house in order.
  If my colleagues did not like the bump in next year's budget and they 
were tempted to vote against the budget resolution, that was a plan, 
that was not all that of a hard vote to vote ``no'' if my colleagues 
thought so. What is important is to vote to actually cut spending where 
we can, domestic spending, to freeze it where we can, defense spending, 
to slow the growth of entitlements.
  If we do all three things, we will, in fact, balance the budget.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize this is not a cut from next year, 
from this year to next year. We are freezing defense spending. My God, 
if we cannot freeze defense spending, how the heck can we continue to 
say that we can cut domestic spending, that we can slow the growth of 
entitlements?
  This is our moment of truth for anyone who wants to get our financial 
house in order and balance the Federal budget. I urge adoption of this 
freeze amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 4\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just think it is time now to 
get real about what it is that we are doing and what it is we are 
talking about. We've heard all of the facts and figures being thrown 
out. This $2 billion cut will have the effect of reducing this budget 
$6.7 billion below last year's level, adjusted for inflation. Whether 
my colleagues like it or not, there is an inflation factor out there 
that we have to take into account, and so this would not be a freeze, 
it would be $6.7 billion below last year in terms of actual buying 
power.
  Now, this subcommittee that brings this bill here today has already 
cut $1.3 billion out of the original number that this House gave us to 
work with. They gave us the number, and we worked from that number. We 
have had to cut it $1.3 billion already, from subcommittee to the 
floor.
  Now we talk about the defense budget. For the last 12 years, 
including this year, the real dollars invested in our Nation's security 
have declined while almost every other spending account that has been 
mentioned in that same 12-year period increased. So, in effect, we are 
playing catchup, and there is a lot more that needs to be done than we 
are doing here, and I am going to talk about that in just a minute.
  But I think it is important that the Members know that two-thirds of 
the money, listen to this, two-thirds of the money appropriated by this 
bill goes for pay, housing, education, medical care, quality-of-life 
issues for our people in the military, as well as training and 
readiness; two-thirds of this bill go for these purposes. Now, why is 
that, and why is it we spend more on our military than other nations?
  Mr. Chairman, it is because we have an all-volunteer military. Those 
men and women serving in uniform today

[[Page H6377]]

are volunteers. They are serving their country because they want to. 
They have not been drafted or conscripted. they are a volunteer 
military, and we have an obligation to take care of them.
  Some $540 million of the money in this budget is going to pay for 
Bosnia, one of the many contingencies that our troops have been 
involved in. With all the operational tempo, the contingencies, we are 
wearing out our equipment, and we need to replace some of that 
equipment.
  What do we do today, my colleagues? What we do today not only 
determines where we are in our military capability in 1996 and 1997. 
What we do today determines what our readiness situation will be 5 
years from now or 10 years from now. Let us not take the chance. Let us 
be prepared, let us reject this amendment, and let us get on with 
passing this bill and getting to conference with the Senate and getting 
it to the President.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, are we going to roll this 
vote? Just for the guidance of the Members, is it the intention of the 
Chair to now take the pending votes and go on to the next amendment in 
debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. A request for a recorded vote on this amendment will be 
postponed until after disposition of the Schroeder amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But we will not go on to the next debate 
until the next votes?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] will be 
postponed.


          SEQUENTIAL VOTES POSTPONED IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 453, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]; an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder]; and an amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                     AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. OBEY

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 101, 
noes 319, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 243]

                               AYES--101

     Ackerman
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--319

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Cardin
     English
     Gillmor
     Hayes
     Lincoln
     McDade
     McIntosh
     Moran
     Saxton
     Smith (NJ)
     Thornton

                              {time}  1924

  Mr. UPTON, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mrs. MYRICK, and Mrs. CLAYTON 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           amendment, as modified, offered by Mrs. Schroeder

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado 
[Mrs. Schroeder], on which further

[[Page H6378]]

proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148, 
noes 265, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 244]

                               AYES--148

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Campbell
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--265

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Cardin
     Clinger
     Cox
     Davis
     English
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Hayes
     King
     Lincoln
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     Meek
     Moran
     Quinn
     Saxton
     Smith (NJ)
     Thornton

                              {time}  1931

  Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment as modified was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     amendment offered by mr. shays

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 219, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 245]

                               AYES--194

     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Camp
     Campbell
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--219

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
  


[[Page H6379]]

  
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McKeon
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mica
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Ackerman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Cardin
     Clinger
     Conyers
     Cunningham
     Davis
     English
     Gillmor
     Hayes
     Johnson, E.B.
     King
     Lincoln
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     Quinn
     Saxton
     Souder
     Thornton

                              {time}  1939

  Mr. PORTMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Hoke

  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hoke: At the end of the bill 
     (before the short title), insert the following new section:
       Sec. 8095. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense under this Act may be obligated or expended to 
     procure landing gear for aircraft except when it is made 
     known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or 
     expend such funds that--
       (1) the manufacturer of the item is part of the national 
     technology and industrial base;
       (2) the landing gear is manufactured and assembled in the 
     United States; and
       (3) the contract through which the procurement is made is 
     entered into more than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act: Provided, That contracts existing on 
     the date of enactment of this Act and existing or subsequent 
     options in such contracts through January 1, 2000 are not 
     covered by this section if the Secretary of the military 
     department which issued the aircraft production contract 
     certifies to the Appropriations Committees of the House and 
     Senate that purchasing landing gear under the terms of this 
     section will create a significant adverse technical, cost, or 
     schedule impact on the aircraft production program.

  Mr. HOKE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment as originally published 
in the Record with an addition to it that clarifies the intent that the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and I had with respect to the 
amendment.
  The clarification makes it clear expressly that the amendment does 
not apply to existing contracts on the date of enactment of the act or 
to subsequent options in such contracts through January 1, 2000. This 
was included at the request of the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we reviewed this amendment and asked the gentleman to 
modify his amendment, which he did. We are prepared to accept it on 
that basis.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for accepting the 
amendment. I would like to say just very, very briefly that what this 
does is essentially it is a ``Buy American'' amendment that applies to 
landing gear with certain exceptions and its makes it clear that the 
landing gear that will go on our military aircraft will, to the extent 
possible, be manufactured and assembled in the United States of 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend from Youngstown, OH, Mr. 
Traficant.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, it will save a 
lot of jobs, and I appreciate the committee happily accepting it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  The amendment was agreed to.


           amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: Page 87, 
     after line 3, insert the following new section:
       Sec.  . (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act for the Department of Defense 
     specimen repository described in subsection (b) may be used 
     for any purpose except in accordance with the requirement in 
     paragraph numbered 3 of the covered Department of Defense 
     policy memorandum that specifically provides that permissible 
     uses of specimen samples in the repository are limited to the 
     following purposes:
       (1) Identification of human remains.
       (2) Internal quality assurance activities to validate 
     processes for collection, maintenance and analysis of 
     samples.
       (3) A purpose for which the donor of the sample (or 
     surviving next-of-kin) provides consent.
       (4) As compelled by other applicable law in a case in which 
     all of the following conditions are present:
       (A) The responsible Department of Defense official has 
     received a proper judicial order or judicial authorization.
       (B) The specimen sample is needed for the investigation or 
     prosecution of a crime punishable by one year or more of 
     confinement.
       (C) No reasonable alternative means for obtaining a 
     specimen for DNA profile analysis is available.
       (b) The specimen repository referred to in subsection (a) 
     is the repository that was established pursuant to Deputy 
     Secretary of Defense Memorandum 47803, dated December 16, 
     1991, and designated as the ``Armed Forces Repository of 
     Specimen Samples for the Identification of Remains'' by 
     paragraph numbered 4 in the covered Department of Defense 
     policy memorandum.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the covered Department of 
     Defense policy memorandum is the memorandum of the Assistant 
     Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) for the Secretary of 
     the Army, dated April 2, 1996, issued pursuant to law which 
     states as its subject ``Policy Refinements for the Armed 
     Forces Repository of Specimen Samples for the Identification 
     of Remains''.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken with my 
friend, the chairman of the committee, as well as Mr. Murtha about this 
provision. These provisions deal with what is an exciting new 
development in the human genome project and the fact that there will 
probably be no larger group of donors of DNA and genetic information 
than all of the members of our military that will be required to 
provide DNA samples.
  Under current Pentagon policy, the use of genetic information only 
goes to the identification of remains or for the investigation of the 
prosecution of a crime.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Young] and I have looked at this. This is, I think, an important 
safeguard that is necessary. It may need to be cleaned up, but I 
certainly have no problem with it.

[[Page H6380]]

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I appreciate that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we 
are prepared to accept it and move on to the next amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
cooperation of both the chairman and the ranking member.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1945

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is for the purpose of entering into a colloquy 
with the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security on the 
question of funding reductions to Defense Business Operations Fund 
activities, which are included in his bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. FOWLER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would be more than happy to 
engage in such a colloquy.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I note that the committee has reduced 
funding for Army and Navy activities in the Defense Business Operations 
Fund by $500 million to reduce funded carryover of these activities. I 
hope that I can receive some clarification from the chairman on how the 
committee intends to distribute this reduction. Could the gentleman 
provide some assurance that the committee intends to apply this 
reduction in a manner that is directly proportionate to the level of 
projected carryover assignable to each of the various kinds of DBOF 
activities?
  I ask this because I am aware that the Naval Aviation Depots' budgets 
were reduced in the Department of Defense review of the Military 
Services' budget request. I am concerned about the possibility that 
further reductions could be applied in an inequitable manner. I would 
also note that the Department of Defense has convened a study group to 
consider modifications to the DOD policy in this area.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue 
to yield, let me assure my colleague from Florida that it is the 
committee's intent to reduce these accounts in a manner that reflects 
the various DBOF activities' proportionate share of the total 
carryover. The committee does not intend to impose an excessive or 
inappropriate burden on any one kind of DBOF function or activity.

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from his clarification. I also want to praise the chairman and his 
committee for the outstanding product they have brought us today. His 
bill makes significant improvements over the administration's request 
by enhancing readiness, modernization, and military quality of life.
  I strongly support passage of this bill, and urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Florida, Chairman Young, at this time.
  I deeply appreciate Chairman Young's efforts to improve the readiness 
of our U.S. Armed Forces to conduct operations in chemical and 
biological operations and their environment. I fully support the 
chairman's request for increased appropriations for the procurement of 
protective chemical-biological clothing.
  Mr. Chairman, I have brought to the subcommittee's attention an offer 
to provide the Armed Services with just such individual protective 
clothing which may result in a cost savings to the American taxpayer. 
Discussions which are ongoing with our Armed Services on this offer 
require additional discussions, and I am seeking the chairman's support 
in assisting me to resolve these discussions during the conference 
process.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TORRES. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
bringing this matter to our attention and assure him that we will look 
forward to working with him between now and conference to come to a 
final resolution on this matter.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for taking this under consideration.


                   amendment offered by mr. de fazio

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeFAZIO: At the end of the bill 
     (before the short title), insert the following new section:
       Sec.  . None of the funds provided in this Act for the 
     National Missile Defense program may be obligated for space-
     based interceptors or space-based directed-energy weapons.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes 
and that the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we talked 
about 30. Did the gentleman just say 20?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I said 20, and that was my 
preference.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, when I discussed it earlier with the 
ranking member----
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. All right, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that 
request, and let me offer another unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment 
and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes and that the time be 
equally divided, and, hopefully, we will not use all the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] will each be recognized for 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio.]
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The amendment before the House is quite simple. It says, and I can 
read it because it is so brief, ``None of the funds provided in this 
act for the national missile defense program may be obligated for 
space-based interceptors or space-based directed energy weapons.''
  The intent of this amendment is to have the Pentagon focus on 
effective missile defense; that is, theater missile defense and other 
national missile defense initiatives which have great promise, and not 
to spin off back into space in the fantasy of star wars once again.
  As we know from our last experiences with star wars, it has an 
infinite capacity to consume funds. We have had much debate here today 
about scarce resources at the Pentagon, and I believe adopting this 
amendment will help the Pentagon to focus more effectively on the 
technologies that have the most promise to defend the United States of 
America and defend our allies.
  It will not impact theater missile defense; it will not impact the 
Nautilus program, which is being developed in concert with Israel; it 
will not impact the Navy Upper Tier program; it will not impact the 
three-plus-three BMDO proposal; it will not impact the LEAP proposal of 
the Navy; it will not impact the EKV proposal of the Army. But what it 
does, within the context of this bill, which will provide $3.2 billion 
for missile defense programs of all types, it will prevent movement and 
dispersal of scarce funds into space-based fantasies.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by putting this 
amendment in a little bit of context, because I think the American 
people do not understand exactly where we are with regard to missile 
defense.

[[Page H6381]]

  There are missiles that threaten people in the United States today. 
There are some now and there will be more in the future. There gets to 
be a debate about how quickly we will have more and how quickly other 
countries will have this capability, but there will be more and nobody 
denies that.
  Second, there is absolutely nothing that we can do today to stop a 
missile from hitting the United States. That is a fact. The children in 
this country are absolutely vulnerable, as is everyone else, to a 
missile attack by a country that has missiles now or someone that may 
have missiles in the future.
  This amendment asks us to tie one hand behind our back as we seek to 
find the best way to meet that threat in the future. The truth is this 
is not the area where most of the work is going on now. It is not the 
area that offers the best possibility for an immediate kind of 
protection against a small sort of launch, but it is something we 
should explore.
  We ought to look ahead to the kinds of threats we will have in the 
future and the best and most effective ways to prevent it in the 
future, and that is why I think it is foolish for us to tie one hand 
behind our back as this amendment seeks to do. We should explore all 
the options and we should take advantage of the best option to protect 
our people and our children, because I think that is the first 
obligation of this Congress and the defense that we are responsible 
for.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my colleague from Oregon. I do so as a supporter of ballistic 
missile defense, both national and theater, and I do so as a supporter 
of the plus-up that the Committee on National Security and the 
appropriations subcommittee have given national missile defense.
  Used wisely, this extra sum of $300 million to $350 million will take 
us, I think, to the point in 3 years where we will have a ground-based 
interceptor to test, and once we have it to test, we can decide if we 
want to move forward with it and deploy it in 3 more years.
  A lot of people in this institution, this House, like the last 
speaker, decry the fact that we do not have ballistic missile defense. 
Let me tell my friends it is not for want of spending money. Since 
Ronald Reagan made his speech in March 1983, we have spent over $35 
billion in pursuit of ballistic missile defenses, strategic defense. 
And a good bit of that, at least at the outset, was spent on space-
based lasers.
  To start with, there was the x-ray laser, which was to be the coup de 
grace. It was to be the ultimate answer to ballistic missile defense. 
It did not pan out. Then there was the excimer laser, and the free 
electron laser, both of which would have been ground-based, but they 
could not propagate a beam through the atmosphere without gross 
corrections. And then there were three or four or five different kinds 
of chemical lasers, and none of them has yet come to fruition, proved 
its efficacy as a system that can be so-called weaponized.

  We have spent more money on space-based interceptors, something 
called Brilliant Pebbles. The idea once was to launch thousands of 
these cheap small satellites encircling the globe in low-earth orbit. 
We built Endo- and Exo-atmospheric interceptors.
  If there is any lesson learned from all of this, it is simply this: 
It is not for lack of funding but lack of focus that we do not have 
anything to deploy that we can call strategic or national missile 
defense today. And if there is anywhere that the lack of focus has cost 
us more, there is nowhere more that it has cost us and bought us less 
than in the area of directed energy systems or spaced-based laser 
systems.
  Now, I support a reasonable level of research on these space-based 
systems, on these directed energy laser systems. One day they may 
realize their potential. They may transform missile defense and other 
forms of military defense. But this amendment, the DeFazio amendment, 
does not preclude this kind of research. That is because this amendment 
does not cut the President's request for research in another ballistic 
missile defense account called the advanced technology line. It leaves 
that line untouched and unaffected.
  This amendment also does not prohibit or affect at all tactical laser 
systems, like the Nautilus, which we are pursuing jointly with Israel 
right now. That is because this is funded in the Army's R&D budget. 
This applies only to national missile defense and says as to it, we can 
do research but we cannot pursue national missile defense systems which 
include a space-based laser.
  The technology to make space-based lasers militarily useful is simply 
years, decades away from fruition, and the cost of developing and 
deploying lasers or interceptors in space is far beyond anything we can 
afford in this tight budget. If we try it, we will only drain dry our 
conventional military systems.
  So this amendment keeps us from going down a very costly and maybe 
ultimately fruitless road.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. I 
just want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks.
  I believe that we should move forward with a treaty compliant ground-
based system. I am not at all opposed to doing research on advanced 
systems, but I think any effort to procure them or to move ahead 
rapidly to a space-based system violates----
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, as I said, that would violate the ABM 
agreement and would be a very serious mistake.
  I appreciate the gentleman, all his hard work and his effort and 
expertise on this matter, and, in my judgment, a ground-based system 
could be effective; and, frankly, I think the real threat to America is 
terrorism and, in my judgment, we should be doing more about that. I 
think that is more of a threat than a ballistic missile attack from an 
enemy.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say that for 
those Members, like the gentleman from Washington and myself who 
support some form of ballistic missile defense, national missile 
defense, the way to go, the sensible approach is with a ground-based 
system. That is the near-term system that is attainable right now.
  This amendment is important because it keeps us focused on that with 
limited amounts of money to spend. If we are going to have a ground-
based system, we can only accomplish it by staying focused and staying 
disciplined.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
other thing is, our first priority has to be theater missile defense 
and CorpsSAM. When we deploy troops, we have to be able to defend those 
troops, and I think the priorities the administration has are correct 
on this.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting just to 
listen to that conversation that just preceded us. The two gentlemen 
were talking past each other. One was talking about the ground-based 
system and the other was talking about some system that is out there in 
the hinterlands for a theater-based defense, and they are not 
necessarily the same. So, they were not necessarily in agreement.
  Look, the liberals have been saying since Gen. Daniel Graham came out 
with what they called the star wars system, they have been saying it 
does not work. Technology is not capable of delivering such a system. 
You cannot possibly shoot down an incoming missile. They said that all 
the way through the eighties.
  All of a sudden, in the nineties, we started developing these systems 
and they started realizing, well, so much for that argument. It is 
gone. Because it is technologically capable. Then they said, well, we 
cannot develop a space-based system or lasers will never work.
  Well, if lasers never work, how come the Israelis want one right now 
that

[[Page H6382]]

has been utilized in the deserts of Arizona or New Mexico and actually 
shot down incoming targets? And Israel says that is so neat, we would 
like to have it.
  The liberals are saying, oh, my goodness, we cannot have a space-
based laser. They are not saying it is not technologically possible. 
They are saying it is not treaty-compliant. What treaty are they 
talking about? The ABM Treaty. The treaty that was confected between 
the United States and a country that used to be called the Soviet 
Union, a monolithic totalitarian government comprised of some 16 
entities, some of which do not even exist today, and certainly that 
entity does not exist today.
  Mr. Chairman, even if we were compliant with that treaty, which was 
probably bad news back then, it certainly did not apply to this highly 
technological age of ours today where the North Koreans, the Chinese, 
the Iranians, the Iraqis and everybody else who is of ill will in the 
world will have the capability of putting ballistic missiles together 
with nuclear warheads, chemical warheads, or biological warheads and 
dropping them on New York. And we are going to say we are not going to 
deploy those space-based opportunities because we do not want to spend 
our money?
  Everybody knows the ground-based system that the gentleman already 
talked about is the most expensive system we already have. The space-
based system actually is the cheapest. The one in between is the Navy 
system, which probably could be deployed by the year 2000.

  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has amended the Republican plan which 
would call for deployment by the year 2003 by saying, well, he has got 
a better amendment. We can develop a system in the year 2000 which may 
or may not be deployed by 2003.
  Weasel words. We will never deploy it if it is up to the gentleman 
who proceeded me in the well. The fact is he does not want an 
antiballistic missile system. He does not want to protect the American 
people. He is willing to hide behind words and good thoughts as much as 
he possibly can, but he does not want a missile defense system that 
will protect the American people or our troops, as was indicated was 
the preference of the gentleman from Washington.
  Now, we are going to have to have a system. We can deploy a system. 
And whether it is space based or sea based or land based, whether it is 
lasers or whatever it is, it ought to be the most effective system that 
money can buy, and it ought to be the most cost-effective system that 
we can get. We should not be standing here in the well of this House of 
Representatives and saying one technology is off limits for whatever 
reason.
  Mr. Chairman, that is insane. We might as well be saying we are going 
to tie our hands behind our backs and not defend the American people. 
Is that what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want? If that 
is what they want, they should vote for DeFazio. If it is not what they 
want, they should vote against it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I began my last statement by saying I am a 
supporter of ballistic missile defense, and in years past when our side 
was in the majority, on several occasions I came to the floor when my 
own committee had cut the request for national missile defense and 
offered amendments which plussed it back up, which prevailed in the 
House.
  Mr. Chairman, I supported ballistic missile defense and support it 
now on the ground, because I think it is an attainable system. But I 
also think, and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations knows 
well, that we have a terribly tight defense budget. If we are going to 
put national defense, missile defense in place by the year 2003, we 
have got to keep it focused on a basic system that we can, indeed, 
deploy.
  Mr. Chairman, we are very close to being able to deploy a ground-
based system which is cheaper than a laser-based system. BMDO put our 
cost estimates in March of 1995, which placed the cost of space-based 
lasers at $20 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion. Those were 
extrapolations. Nobody knows for sure, because it is a very, very 
embryonic technology. We have years to go.
  There is another problem with space-based, or any kind of space-based 
systems, and that is their inherent vulnerability. Because once they 
are placed in space in fixed orbit, then they can be taken out in fixed 
orbit. They can be taken out by any country which is our adversary and 
can launch an ICBM that would truly be a threat to us. They can fire an 
ICBM against it, or they can use an antisatellite system which itself 
is space-based. They could even launch a space-based laser against it.
  So, Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons that BMDO abandoned space-based 
systems some time ago in preference for ground-based, at least as a 
first stages, is the inherent vulnerability of predeployed assets in 
space, lasers and interceptors.
  Mr. Chairman, I am against wasting more money on deployment; not on 
research. I specifically made that clear. This allows research to 
continue. But against pursuing the deployment of these systems, because 
they would preclude the one thing that is attainable in the near term: 
ground-based interceptors.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the distinguished gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], that the gentleman from South Carolina 
and myself, the former chairman of the Senate Arms Services Committee, 
are all people who are committed to deploying a system. We think that a 
thin system that is treaty-compliant is the right way to go because we 
think it is attainable. We think it does not start an arms race with 
the other side, and it will be less expensive.
  Now, what I said, and I think the gentleman misunderstood me, is that 
it is crucial. First of all, if we are going to send 500,000 troops to 
the Gulf again, I want them to go with theater missile defense, PAC-3, 
THAD, and using Navy ships with the standard missile. I think that is a 
good approach to defending our troops in the field. To me, that should 
be the highest priority.
  Mr. Chairman, when we are sending men and women into combat, they 
have to have protection from scud missiles and other launchers. That 
should be first.
  And then, second, we should keep working on deploying this system. We 
are prepared to go in that direction, and we should continue to do the 
research on the other, more exotic layered systems, but I think we 
should not deploy them; as long as we are going to maintain the ABM 
agreement, I do not think they should be deployed.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, three points. First of all, the 
gentleman that preceded me is talking about the use of existing 
technology, which means we could deploy that right now. We have that 
equipment. That is not the issue.
  The gentleman is trying to substitute existing technology for future 
technology. The fact, is in answer to the gentleman who preceded him, 
Mr. Spratt, the fact is any system is vulnerable to some degree. I 
mean, you could take out a ground-based system; you could take out a 
sea-based system; you could take out a space-based system. They are all 
vulnerable. The point is, are we going to provide some umbrella of 
protection for the American people?
  Mr. Chairman, I happen to think we should look for the best 
technology at the best available price, and we should not start 
blocking out certain technologies just because they happen to be exotic 
for somebody who never believed in them in the first place. That is 
exactly the position of the author of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that Members would understand, we are not 
the experts. Let us develop the system. Actually, I have read the 
language very carefully, from the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] to the ballistic missile defense program or the bill that we 
have offered on the floor, and he does not commit to deploying. The 
gentleman says he looks forward

[[Page H6383]]

to developing a system that may be deployed by the year 2003.

  Mr. Chairman, we say we will deploy by the year 2003. There is a gulf 
of difference between those two positions. I say we should be deploying 
and we should be looking forward to the best, cheapest, most effective 
system to protect the American people. Anything less than that is an 
abdication of our responsibility to them, our constituents.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the question is, what are we going to 
deploy? What is there to deploy? Are we going to fly before we have 
done the technology and worked it out and proven it will work? That is 
a prescription for throwing money at the problem in a ideological 
overreaction.
  Mr. Chairman, let us try to go with technology that we know something 
about that will work, that will give us limited protection, because 
that is all we are going to get.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, star wars is the Freddie Krueger of 
defense. It simply will not die.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. If Members oppose star 
wars, vote ``yes'' on this amendment. If they want to revive star wars, 
an ill-fated taxpayer boondoggle that has never done anything for the 
American people's defense, then oppose this amendment. It is very 
simple.
  Mr. Chairman, if Members think it was not enough to take $30 billion 
of taxpayers' money to put into this program that never proved out, was 
never able to be deployed in the 1980's, then vote ``no'' on this 
amendment. To spend more money on star wars is like spending more money 
on the Edsel. It simply will not work no matter how hard we try. It is 
very simple.
  Finally, if we want to take limited defense dollars and ultimately 
put them in a space-based system that is unproven, rather than military 
construction, military pay raises, theater missile defense, if Members 
want to take money out of their terribly important defense programs and 
put it once again into star wars, which I thought my Republican 
colleagues said in the defense bill debate right on this floor last 
year they had no interest in, if Members want to do all of that, they 
should vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  If my colleagues think it is time to put a stake in the heart of this 
modern-day Dracula known as star wars, then vote ``yes'' for this 
amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the remaining time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] has 8 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, just when we thought star wars was 
relegated to the video rental store, it comes back as national policy.
  Mr. Chairman, It is unbelievable that in the same week that the 
Gingrich Congress passed a budget that hurts seniors, hurts children, 
and hurts the environment, we are considering spending $245 billion on 
the military. This bill that we are talking about now will accelerate 
the space-based star wars program and wind up costing $30 billion to 
$40 billion by the time the project is completed.
  That is not science fiction, folks; it is double-feature horror show: 
yesterday's conference report and today's defense bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeFazio amendment because the 
Nation cannot waste $30 billion to $40 billion on a space-based star 
wars system.
  When our seniors are losing the guarantee of high-quality health 
care, this Nation cannot afford to waste $30 billion to $40 billion on 
a space-based star wars system when our young people cannot afford to 
go to college.
  This Nation cannot afford to waste $30 billion to $40 billion on a 
space-based star wars system when poor children are losing the 
guarantee of basic health care.
  Mr. Chairman, let us ground ourselves in reality for a moment. The 
United States spends as much on the military as all of our allies 
combined. We spend 100 times more money on the military than Iraq. 
Iraq, which is the biggest spender among the rogue nations.
  This Nation cannot afford to waste $30 billion to $40 billion on a 
space-based star wars system when the threat of a missile attack has 
been reduced by the end of the cold war.
  Inventing a threat in order to justify this star wars gravy train for 
defense contractors is simply irresponsible.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I remember the debate last year when the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards] stood on this side and a Member on the other side 
kept saying, ``I wish you would not say star wars.'' We are not talking 
about star wars. We are not going back to star wars. Star wars was a 
failure. We are talking about ballistic missile defense and things that 
are workable.
  Mr. Chairman, here we are now a year later, and we want to open that 
door again. As we heard so ably discussed by the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], 
there is technology out there which exists, which can potentially 
defend the United States against these threats that we hear so much 
about, the rogue nations and the single or the few multiple missiles.
  But what we are talking about here, if this amendment is defeated, is 
opening the door again to the star wars fantasy to spend another $30 
billion to $60 million, which is estimated by the majority's own 
Congressional Budget Office. They came up with the $30 billion to $60 
billion estimate for star wars.

                              {time}  2015

  That is why the bill was pulled about a week and a half ago from the 
floor of the House. So let us focus our scarce resources on something 
that might provide benefit for the United States of America in terms of 
defending our own Nation against rogue nations, which might, in fact 
already has defended our troops when they are deployed overseas 
hopefully defend some of our allies overseas in the co-development with 
Israel of the Nautilus program.
  This amendment allows the TMD, the Nautilus, the Navy Upper Tier, the 
3 plus 3 BMDO, the LEAP, the EKV; all those programs can go forward. 
They are all technologies that have a good chance of working.
  What it does say is that we are not going to move ahead to deployment 
of a $30- to $60 billion boondoggle that will not do anything to defend 
our Nation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish you could understand how silly it 
sounds, all these references to star wars, to talk about all these 
other theater missile defense systems that are working. Where do my 
colleagues think all that technology came from?
  This is simply a funding limitation, doing something to ourselves 
that no other Nation is doing to itself. This is an R&D program, and to 
not spend this, and this is why I am shocked by some of the strong 
Democrat defense eagles on the other side, not clearing the air here. 
Stop this silly rhetoric, and let us not hamstring ourselves in a 
dangerous world. Do my colleagues not take questions at townhall 
meetings that indicate that this country is still undefended from a 
rogue missile?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the author of the amendment has 
suggested all the things that we can do under his amendment. But there 
are some things that we cannot do. We restrict the ability under this 
amendment to move into some types of technology that really look like 
they might be very promising and very clean and very efficient.
  I would give the example, the U.S.-Israeli program referred to as 
Nautilus, a laser program missile defense program. It seems to have a 
tremendous amount of promise, and we are funding it in this bill. 
Except for the range involved,

[[Page H6384]]

it is not unlike the type of laser that we might be talking about. The 
point is that may or may not be the system that we would deploy 
eventually. But we should not deny ourselves the opportunity to 
investigate, to search out, to find out what really would be the best 
way to defend our Nation against a rogue attack or in the future, who 
knows, against an intentional attack.
  We know the threat is growing. The point is that we do not have the 
ability to defend this Nation against an incoming missile. We all know 
that in this Chamber. There may be some who do not believe that. But 
that is the fact.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and I, because of the 
positions that we hold in this Congress, have the opportunity to know 
whether we have that kind of a protective device or not. The answer is 
we do not.
  It is interesting. Just about 3 weeks ago I was talking with a group 
of business people, some of who were involved in military industry. And 
one of the persons who really should know said to me: Look, I do not 
care what you guys say. I know you have something out there to defend 
us if the enemy should send a missile or whether it should come by 
mistake or however it might come.
  Of course we know that the North Koreans are developing longer-range 
missiles all the time. We know that Libya and Iraq and countries like 
those are and have been developing weapons of mass destruction that 
could easily fit on a North Korean No Dong missile.
  We also know that Iran is willing to put up plenty of money to harass 
the United States and our interests. So the threat is there, and the 
threat is growing.
  We ought not to deny ourselves the opportunity to really find out 
what is the best way to defend our Nation. The administration says we 
do not have to worry about this for at least 15 years. I disagree with 
that. I think the capability on the part of a rogue nation will be 
there long before the 15-year period, and I think even the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Dicks] would agree with that.

  Here is what I want to tell Members. Despite the gentlemen in 
industry who told me we really have something, in your town hall 
meetings, in your meeting with children in schools, the question comes 
up about defending America from missile attacks. Most of the people in 
our country believe that somewhere, someone has the answer, has 
something to pull out of the magic hat to defend our Nation. The fact 
is we do not.
  When Pearl Harbor was attacked, I was just a little kid. I was 
growing up in a small coal mine town in western Pennsylvania. We did 
not have television back then, so we did not know too much about what 
was happening. But the radio accounts and the newspaper accounts were 
frightening to young kids who wondered if we were going to be invaded 
next week or next month because we had suffered such a devastating blow 
in Pearl Harbor.
  As I began to learn more about what was happening, as our Nation 
rebuilt after Pearl Harbor, we had time in those days; we would not 
have time today. I began to realize that in America someone was looking 
out for me and all the other little kids in my same generation. And 
they did. They came back and rebuilt the armies and the navies and the 
air forces. After a tremendous struggle, tremendous sacrifice, 
tremendous loss of life, we won World War II. Today those kids in those 
schoolrooms where you go to visit believe that we have the capability 
to defend your Nation against an incoming missile. They think in their 
hearts, like I did when I was a kid, and I will bet many of you did, 
that, OK, so there is a threat out there; but someone somewhere is 
going to make sure that we have whatever it is we need should the time 
ever come.
  Mr. Chairman, that is us. We are the ones that those young kids of 
today believe have something somewhere to take care of the Nation 
should that attack ever come. That is us. And that vote is here today 
on this amendment.
  Vote no on this amendment, and let us prepare this Nation to defend 
itself should the time ever come.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


amendment offered by mr. dicks to the amendment offered by mr. de fazio

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. DeFazio: On line 2, add at the end ``for the deployment 
     of''.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to explain my 
amendment for 1 minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear that what 
we are talking about in this amendment is the deployment of a space-
based system, not that we are stopping the obligation of money for an 
R&D approach. There are legitimate R&D programs that should go forward, 
and I would urge the chairman and the ranking member to accept the 
amendment, and my colleague from Oregon.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, is this intended to be an 
amendment to the amendment or an amendment to the bill?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it is an amendment to the amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, the amendment says, at the end of the bill before the short 
title. It does not say amendment to the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it is added at the end of line 2, ``for the 
deployment of''.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I object. Mr. Chairman, I 
object.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment has already been reported and is pending. 
The unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Washington was for 
time to debate the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote on my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], as 
amended, will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                   AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BEREUTER

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter: Page 87, after line 3, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 8095: Hereafter, the Air National Guard may assume 
     primary or sole responsibility for providing fire fighting 
     and rescue services in response to all aircraft-related 
     emergencies at the Lincoln Municipal Airport in Lincoln, 
     Nebraska.


           modification of amendment offered by mr. bereuter

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be modified, that on line 2 of the amendment the words 
``primary or sole'' be stricken.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification of amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter: In line 
     2 of the Bureuter amendment No. 4, strike ``primary or 
     sole''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we have a few problems with this

[[Page H6385]]

amendment but would be prepared to accept it.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, in light of the chairman's generous 
agreement to accept the amendment, as modified, I will not complete my 
entire statement.
  I will say, however, that this should save the American taxpayer and 
the taxpayers of Lincoln a substantial amount of money. And by the 
deletion of the three words, we remove any kind of direction to them 
about what kind of agreement the National Guard and the city of Lincoln 
acting through the Lincoln Airport Authority may agree to. I think it 
is appropriate to leave complete discretion to them regarding the 
amount of degree of responsibility that may be assured.
  I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his courtesy.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It 
would allow the Air National Guard to assume responsibility for 
providing firefighting and rescue services in response to all aircraft-
related emergencies at the Lincoln Municipal Airport in Lincoln, NE.
  This amendment offers a commonsense, cost-effective solution to a 
long-standing problem at the airport. Currently, the Lincoln Fire 
Department and the Air National Guard both are stationed at the airport 
and respond to aircraft-related emergencies at the airport. This is 
clearly an inefficient and costly situation which does nothing to 
increase safety.
  The airport, the city of Lincoln, and the Nebraska National Guard all 
agree that it makes more sense to place the National Guard firefighting 
personnel with their matchlessly superb equipment--5 trucks and 30 
personnel--in charge of all aircraft-related emergencies. Not only 
would this change result in no increase in costs to the National Guard, 
it would actually save them money. The airport has, preliminarily 
agreed, for example, to cancel the National Guard's $60,000 per year 
payment to the Lincoln Airport if the National Guard assumes the 
firefighting responsibilities.
  This would clearly be a win-win situation for everyone. 
Unfortunately, the interested parties are running into a bureaucratic 
roadblock because there is no explicit congressional authority to allow 
this arrangement. This amendment fixes the problem by making it clear 
with permissive legislation that the National Guard may assume 
responsibility for firefighting and rescue services at the Lincoln 
Municipal Airport.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. skelton

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. SKELTON: Page 87, after line 3, 
     insert the following new section.
       Sec.  . Of the funds provided in title IV for ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', the amount 
     available for National Missile Defense shall not exceed 
     $812,437,000.

  Mr. SKELTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise with an amendment to modify the 
funding priorities of the bill for missile defense programs. It is my 
intention to explain this and to discuss it briefly with the chairman 
of this subcommittee, Mr. Young, and then it is my intention to 
withdraw it. But I wish I could explain it at this time.
  The bill before us contains $350 million increase for national 
missile defense research and development but eliminates funding for the 
only emerging technology aimed at protecting our front line troops 
throughout the world. The program formerly named CORPS SAM and now 
called Medium Extended Air Defense Systems, or MEADS, is a joint 
research and development program with Germany and Italy. The 
administration's budget request included $56 million, but this bill 
includes no funding, no funding. My amendment recommends restoring $46 
million to MEADS from the National Missile Defense Account.
  Our forward deployed military personnel face a critical and growing 
threat from the air. Today short range ballistic missiles, cruise 
missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles threaten American soldiers, front 
line American soldiers. Tomorrow this threat will certainly be greater. 
We live in a dangerous world. Our troops were vulnerable to missile 
attack in Desert Storm, and further proliferation of dangerous weapons 
will certainly increase the threat tomorrow. I am concerned because no 
other program, Mr. Chairman, no other program promises to protect our 
forward deployed troops as shown by a chart that I have available.
  I might say that, on behalf of our soldiers and our marines, three of 
our regional commanders have written about the requirements for MEADS: 
Generals Luck, Peay, and Joulwan.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following correspondence:

         Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of 
           Staff for Operations and Plans,
                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 1996.
     Hon. Floyd Spence,
     Chairman, House National Security Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Army understands that the House 
     National Security Committee (HNSC) Research & Development 
     Subcommittee will recommend during full committee markup that 
     Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) funding be cut. 
     This action is apparently based on concerns surrounding 
     technical, fiscal, and cooperative issues surrounding this 
     international effort. These misconceptions place this program 
     in severe jeopardy and place our future deployed forces at 
     risk.
       The MEADS effort was undertaken to explore a cost effective 
     international solution to the need for defense of maneuver 
     forces against the full threat spectrum to include aircraft, 
     helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), cruise missiles 
     (CM), and theater ballistic missiles (TBM). This need was 
     reemphasized both last summer in a series of Senior 
     Department level and CINC letters to Congress and in DoD's 
     recently completed Ballistic Missile Defense Review which 
     fully funded the programs' Project Definition and Validation 
     (PD-V) Phase. Despite the potential French withdrawal from 
     the program, the urgent need to provide maneuver force 
     protection still exists.
       The United States, Germany, and Italy recently committed to 
     continue the international program, as demonstrated by their 
     22 April 1996 trilateral Statement of Intent. The Army 
     enthusiastically supports pursuit of this international 
     program with our NATO allies including Germany, one of our 
     strongest and most stable air defense partners. The lack of 
     demonstrated U.S. financial resolve will undoubtedly send a 
     perplexing signal to this international industrial and 
     governmental partnership.
       MEADS is recognized as a vital defense system for the 
     challenge of force protection on the 21st century 
     battlefield. The Army views a system like MEADS as the 
     eventual long term replacement for the Patriot system as the 
     Army's lower tier TBM defense in the post 2010 time frame. 
     The current investment in the PD-V phase will ensure that 
     Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors of the future will be 
     protected on the battlefield by a robust system capable of 
     responding to the full spectrum of threat.
       Request your support for this critical Department of 
     Defense Army air and missile defense program.
           Respectfully,
                                           Edward G. Anderson III,
     Major General, U.S. Army.
                                                                    ____

         Department of Defense, Ballistic Missile Defense 
           Organization,
                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 1996.
     Hon. Floyd Spence,
     Chairman, House National Security Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Sir: I understand that the R&D Subcommittee has 
     recommended that, in the FY97 Authorization Bill, the Medium 
     Extended Air Defense (MEADS) be canceled. I would 
     respectfully ask the Committee not to accept this 
     recommendation for several reasons.
       MEADS is an absolutely critical element of our ballistic 
     missile defense architecture, providing the critical 
     protection for US maneuver forces as they engage the enemy. 
     It is strongly supported by both the U.S. Army and Marine 
     Corps. In last year's discussion of MEADS, General Joulwan, 
     our European CINC, forwarded a particularly strong letter of 
     support for MEADS, reflecting the views of our other 
     warfighters.
       It is the only system that will have the transportability 
     and mobility to be brought into theater and to forward deploy 
     with the troops. Besides its capability to defend against 
     ballistic missiles, it is a critical system to also protect 
     these forces against advanced aircraft and cruise missiles. 
     Patriot and other missile defense systems in our theater 
     architecture cannot fulfill this role.
       MEADS is envisioned to be a key multinational co-
     development program where we will leverage investment by 
     European partners, who have similar military requirements, to 
     undertake and complete the system development. We are 
     responding to the direction given to us by the Congress in 
     the FY96 Authorization Act.
       As I have indicated to the Committee in my recent 
     testimony, our negotiations with our European partners are 
     complete and we should sign the Memorandum of Understanding 
     within the next few weeks. Against the backdrop of a HNSC 
     cancellation of the Program in FY97, the credibility of the 
     United

[[Page H6386]]

     States vis-a-vis armaments cooperation will be called into 
     question. Additionally, such a cancellation would have very 
     serious ramifications vis-a-vis other programs where the 
     United States is seeking European support.
           Sincerely,
                                               Malcolm R. O'Neill,
     Lieutenant General, USA, Director.
                                                                    ____

         Department of the Army, U.S. Army Space and Strategic 
           Defense Command
                                      Arlington, VA, May 16, 1996.
     Hon. Floyd Spence,
     Chairman, House National Security Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman. The Army understands that the House 
     National Security Committee has recommended that funding for 
     the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) be cut and the 
     Senate Armed Services Committee has recommended funding be 
     reduced below the level negotiated for the international 
     program. These actions place this program in severe jeopardy 
     and, as a result, place our deployed forces at risk.
       The threats to Army and Marine Corps maneuver forces (short 
     range tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and 
     unmanned aerial vehicles) exist today and will grow 
     significantly as we enter the 21st Century. The joint 
     requirement document specifics countering these threats with 
     a strategically deployable, tactically mobile system 
     providing 360 degree coverage. Existing system configurations 
     fail to provide the required protection due to deployability 
     and mobility limitations, lack of 360 degree coverage, and 
     lack of growth potential to meet these essential 
     requirements.
       As envisioned, this requirement will provide our forces the 
     mobile protection required on future battlefields. The United 
     States, Germany and Italy recently committed to continue the 
     international program as demonstrated by their April 22, 1996 
     trilateral statement of intent. MEADS is the only system 
     currently being designed with the mobility, deployability, 
     target set and other critical characteristics of meet the 
     Corps SAM requirements.
       As the Theater Missile Defense Advocate for the United 
     States Army, I strongly recommend that the Congress consider 
     the MEADS/Corps SAM requirements and restore the funding 
     necessary for this system designated for the protection of 
     our maneuver forces.
           Sincerly,
                                                Jay M. Garner,    
                                Lieutenant General, U.S. Army.    
     Commanding Officer.
                                                                    ____



                                           United States Army,

                                          The Vice Chief of Staff.
     Hon. Floyd Spence,
     Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand the House National Security 
     Committee (HNSC) recommended zeroing the funding request for 
     the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) in the FY97 
     Defense Authorization Bill. As its Chief of staff emphasized 
     last summer following the SASC's vote to terminate the 
     program, the critical warfighting requirement that MEADS 
     intends to fill remains completely valid. As such, further 
     funding disruptions will significantly impair our ability to 
     expeditiously field a theater missile defense (TMD) system 
     designed to protect our maneuver forces.
       The threats to Army and Marine Corps maneuver forces form 
     short range tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and 
     unmanned aerial vehicles exist today and will grow 
     significantly as we enter the 21st Century. The MEADS 
     requirements documents specifies countering these threats 
     with a strategically deployable, tactically mobile system 
     providing 360 degree defense coverage. Existing system 
     configurations fail to provide the required protection due to 
     deployability and mobility limitations, lack of 360 degree 
     defense coverage, and lack of growth potential to meet these 
     essential requirements.
       Despite the potential French withdrawal from the program, 
     the Army fully supports the MEADS international effort with 
     our NATO allies. The MEADS program improves both US and NATO 
     operational capability through total interoperability. Having 
     MEADS deployed with our allies would mean less reliance on US 
     assets to defend US and Allied forces and interests. This 
     critical program is essential to further NATO cooperative 
     efforts and a strong alliance. We support the Department of 
     Defense decision to fully fund the MEADS Project Definition 
     and Validation phase. This will allow international industry 
     teams to fully explore all key TMD technologies and recommend 
     robust, cost-effective solutions. I appreciate your support 
     as we seek to provide the highest quality TMD force 
     protection possible.
           Sincerely,
                                           Ronald H. Griffith,    
                                  General, United States Army,    
     Vice Chief of Staff.
                                                                    ____

                                           Department of the Navy,


                                   United States Marine Corps,

                                                   Washington, DC.
                                           Department of the Army,


                                      Headquarters, U.S. Army,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to reaffirm our 
     requirement for 360 degree protection against all tactical 
     aircraft--from supersonic jets to attack helicopters, against 
     advanced, low signature cruise missiles, and against medium 
     and short range ballistic missiles. Army and Marine Corps 
     maneuver forces face these threats today and are expected to 
     face an expanding threat as we enter the 21st Century.
       The Army and Marine Corps are in agreement that the Initial 
     International Common Operational Requirements for the Medium 
     Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) includes features 
     necessary to meet the expeditionary nature of the Marine 
     Corps, and will satisfy future Army Air Defense requirements. 
     The MEADS program will involve participation by two key NATO 
     allies, Italy and Germany.
       We are very concerned that the Army and the Marine Corps 
     currently do not have a system to meet this requirement. 
     MEADS is projected to fulfill this requirement. The Army and 
     the Marine Corps fully support the Department of Defense 
     decision to fully fund the MEADS Project Definition and 
     Validation phase. Funding will allow international industry 
     teams to fully explore all key theater missile defense 
     technologies and recommend robust, cost-effective solutions.
       As always, we appreciate your support as we seek to provide 
     the highest quality Missile Defense protection available for 
     soldiers and Marines.
           Sincerely,
     C.C. Krulak,
       General, U.S. Marine Corps,
       Commander of the Marine Corps.
     Dennis J. Reimer,
       General, U.S. Army,
       Chief of Staff.
                                                                    ____

                                                     Headquarters,


                                  United States Forces, Korea,

                                                    June 13, 1996.
     Hon. Ike Skelton,
     Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Military 
         Procurement, Committee on National Security, U.S. House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Ranking Minority Member: On behalf of the airmen, 
     soldiers, sailors, marines and civilians serving under my 
     command in the Republic of Korea, I would like to thank you 
     for your past support. I again find myself coming to you for 
     assistance on a matter of the utmost importance to our 
     mission on the Korean peninsula. I am writing you because of 
     the threat to funding of a program that I view as a critical 
     component of the security of my theater.
       As I stated in testimony earlier this year and in a letter 
     to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff which was well 
     reported in the press, ``Theater Missile Defense is another 
     key area where we must improve our capability on the Korean 
     peninsula. DPRK missiles threaten all our major ports, air 
     bases, fielded ROK and US forces, and the population at 
     large. However, even after upgrading to the PAC-3 
     configuration, these missiles can not cover all of our 
     critical locations.'' Although this statement was directed 
     toward an upper tier system, I emphasized the importance of 
     an upper tier system being in concert with an effective lower 
     tier system.
       The threat to forward ground combat forces in this theater 
     from short and medium range ballistic missiles, unmanned 
     aerial vehicles (UAV), and cruise missiles is already 
     formidable, and continues to grow. The only system in place 
     to defeat these threats across the full spectrum is Patriot, 
     which consumes tremendous amounts of lift to get to the 
     theater, lacks the mobility to support mobile combat forces 
     and survive on the forward battlefield, and can only provide 
     defense in a 90 degree sector.
       The requirement for the Medium Extended Air Defense System 
     (MEADS), formerly known as Corps SAM, gives the corps 
     commander the means to protect his warfighting capability, 
     and would also protect Marine amphibious forces from forced 
     landing through redeployment. Compared to Patriot, MEADS/
     Corps SAM cuts airlift requirements in half, can cover twice 
     as many forces in a movement to contact, with a third of the 
     survival risk, and provides full 360 degree protection 
     against all airborne threats. The need for this system is 
     clear and fielding of this capability is vital to our 
     survival and success on the future battlefield. That is 
     precisely why this requirement, as part of a complete Theater 
     Missile Defense program, is in the top 10 of our integrated 
     priority list.
       The Department of Defense has decided to fully fund the 
     MEADS Project Definition and Validation Phase. Again, what 
     concerns me is that funding for this critical program is 
     threatened. Request your immediate support in the restoration 
     of funding to the DOD requested level. Thank you for your 
     continued support and assistance in this important endeavor.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Gary E. Luck,    
                                           General, U.S. Army,    
     Commander in Chief.
                                                                    ____


[[Page H6387]]

                                    United States Central Command,


                             Office of the Commander in Chief,

                        MacDill Air Force Base, FL, June 12, 1996.
     Hon. Ike Skelton,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Procurement, 
         Committee on National Security, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Skelton: The House National Security Committee's 
     1997 Defense Authorization Bill currently proposes to 
     eliminate funding support of the Medium Extended Air Defense 
     System (MEADS). In today's increasingly complex, unstable 
     world, this is unfortunate.
       In the Central Region, the ability to defend against an 
     ever growing threat from aircraft and short/medium range 
     ballistic missiles is one of our highest priorities. In our 
     view, key capabilities of any air/missile defense system are: 
     mobility, 360 degree coverage, technical performance against 
     the threat, and interoperability with our allies as well as 
     across service lines. Systems currently in use do not meet 
     these essential requirements. More importantly, we need a 
     multi-layered air defense system that has as a major 
     component the lower altitude capability to protect deep and 
     fast moving land forces (Army and Marine) at distance from 
     the shore or land entry point.
       The capabilities inherent in Corps SAM/MEADS, or some 
     similar derivative, will result in an increased ability to 
     defend against current and future threats as well as 
     possessing the characteristics so important in today's joint 
     environment: mobility and interoperability. Continued funding 
     support for this capability is crucial given the current 
     threat we face in the Central Region as well as the prospects 
     afforded by the proliferation of ballistic missile 
     technology. In sustaining an international coalition, it is 
     important that we be capable of providing a viable defense 
     for the forces committed to our mutual objectives. I 
     appreciate your support in restoring funding for this key 
     program that will help defend our service men and women.
           Sincerely,
                                            J.H. Binford Peay III,
     General, USA, Commander in Chief
                                                                    ____

                                               Commander in Chief,


                               United States European Command,

                                                    June 13, 1996.
     Hon. Ike Skelton,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Procurement, House 
         Committee on National Security, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Skelton: The President's Budget request for fiscal 
     year 1997 included $56.2 million for the multinational Medium 
     Extended Air Defense (MEADS) program, but the House recently 
     passed a Department of Defense Authorization Bill that zeroes 
     the MEADS program funding. In the short time since passage of 
     the Authorization Bill, the Bill's key concern, expressed in 
     the House report, has been addressed. The Memorandum of 
     Understanding has been signed by the U.S., Germany, and 
     Italy. Despite the withdrawal of the French from the program, 
     there remains solid trilateral support for MEADS. Continued 
     Congressional support of this program is essential for our 
     Theater Missile Defense (TMD) program.
       Theater missile defense is one of my top priorities. Many 
     nations are developing and employing theater ballistic 
     missiles, cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles which 
     threaten U.S. and allied security interests. The ``core'' 
     U.S. TMD systems play a central role in defending U.S. 
     interests and forces, but these systems are limited by 
     geography and strategic life requirements. Naval systems can 
     reach only so far inland, and Patriot battalions require 
     almost 70 C-5 sorties to deploy and offer little tactical 
     mobility.
       On tracked vehicles, the MEADS system moves forward with 
     maneuver forces while protecting against low-level aircraft 
     and cruise missiles as well as ballistic missiles. It 
     requires substantially less strategic lift and enables the 
     U.S. to protect both its forces and its regional interests 
     against a wide spectrum of threats.
       MEADS is an integral part of the multi-national, multi-
     service, layered defense architecture and provides cost-
     effective defense in our constrained fiscal environment. 
     Unilateral development and fielding of new TMD systems often 
     make programs unaffordable. Yet, with the Germans and 
     Italians sharing the MEADS program costs, we can realize 
     substantial savings.
       I urge your support for the critical TMD system.
           Sincerely,
                                                George A. Joulwan,
                                                General U.S. Army.

  Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Florida if he understands the 
importance of this MEADS proposal?

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would respond and say we 
certainly understand the importance of CORPS SAM. We also know there 
are some difficulties in the program because of the international 
participation in the program, where it is unclear if some of the 
sponsors or some of those who are involved are committed to this 
effort. However, we will work with the gentleman to make sure that the 
right thing is done on the issue of CORPS SAM because I think it is an 
important issue.
  Mr. SKELTON. I appreciate that. This is terribly important. In all of 
this discussion about missile defense, no one seems to be looking out 
for the front-line American troops. That is the purpose of this MEADS 
proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, with the gentleman agreeing to work with me and looking 
forward to the future in the conference, I will at this time ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Skelton] is withdrawn.


                    amendment offered by mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: At the end of the bill 
     (before the short title), insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available to the Department 
     of Defense under this Act may be obligated or expended to 
     enter into or renew a contract with an entity when it is made 
     known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or 
     expend such funds that--
       (1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United 
     States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d) 
     of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an 
     annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment 
     of certain veterans; and
       (2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by 
     that section for the most recent year for which such 
     requirement was applicable to such entity.

  Mr. SOLOMON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. Veterans who serve 
in the U.S. Armed Forces over all the years of this country have always 
lagged behind their peers, those that did not serve in the military. 
They were always 4 years behind going to college, 4 years behind 
advancing up the ladder of success and promotion, and because of that, 
we have veterans preference laws in this county to try and help them 
catch up. Many times those laws are disregarded.
  We, in the middle of the 1970's, when a very unpopular war had been 
taking place and our veterans returning home, we enacted title 38, 
United States Code, which required contractors or entities who received 
contracts or grants of moneys from this defense budget, that they be 
required to file a report to show their hiring practices and policies. 
Today we know by studies that over 23,000 contractors just completely 
disregarded this.
  What this amendment says is that none of the funds can be used for 
any contractor who has not lived up to the law and filed that report. 
This is meant to encourage those contractors to live under the law and 
treat our veterans fairly.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and say to him that we have reviewed this amendment and 
discussed it with him. We know that he is one of the many Members of 
this Chamber who is always in the front line defending the rights of 
veterans and protecting veterans. We appreciate that, and we are 
prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Very good, and I thank both those great Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, it is troubling to think that anyone in our society 
would even consider discriminating against our veterans.
  However, that is the case and that's why Congress enacted laws to 
help them find employment.

[[Page H6388]]

  But now those laws are being ignored.
  In 1972 the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act was 
enacted to increase the level of employment of veterans by Federal 
contractors.
  In 1973, concerns raised by Congress over the continuing high rate of 
unemployment among Vietnam veterans led to a GAO investigation.
  GAO's report in 1974 showed serious shortcomings in both 
implementation and enforcement of the statute by the U.S. Department of 
Labor.
  Congress then responded by authorizing statutory adjustments that 
gave rise to the Vietnam Era Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.
  Since these original concerns expressed by the GAO, it is now fair to 
note that 22 years later, there is still evidence of D.O.L.'s failure 
to appropriately enforce the provision that Government contractor's 
file reports on veterans employment.
  They are required to report the number of Vietnam-era veterans and 
special disabled veterans employed by job category, as well as the 
total number of covered veterans hired.
  Since 1988 this annual report has been required of Federal 
contractors.
  The Vets-100 report was created to monitor veterans' employment and 
meet this requirement.
  However, research performed by the center for the study of veterans 
in society indicates that a large number of contractors have failed to 
file the required Vets-100 report.
  In 1992, a F.O.I.A. request was filed with the Secretary of Labor by 
the Center for the Study of Veterans in Society.
  Resulting analysis showed that in 1990, of 130,930 Federal 
contractors, 10,092 failed to file this and in 1991, the percentage 
more than doubled to 15.9 percent, with 23,664 of 148,923 contractors 
failing to file.
  This disturbing trend must be changed.
  Information on the employment of veterans is essential to insure they 
are not forgotten, discarded warriors.
  But sadly enough, that's exactly what's happening.
  Less than 1 percent of those employed by some of this country's 
largest and more prominent universities are veterans.
  Just listen to the obstacles faced by one such distinguished veteran, 
who holds a Ph.D in his field.
  This particular Vietnam veteran was actually asked to leave the home 
of a college president during an interview, when he let it slip that he 
had served in Vietnam.
  In addition, in 80 instances when he was asked back for an interview 
after applying for a job, all contact ended in 76 of them when his 
military service was revealed.
  Now that is just plain unacceptable.
  From now on, anyone who wants to forget, ignore, or just plain 
discriminate against our veterans when it comes to hiring, 
recommending, promoting, or firing workers will have to go without any 
Federal tax dollars.
  Eventually, agencies within this very government--and those 
contracting with them--will get the message that our veterans helped 
get us where we are today and have a great deal to offer any 
organization.
  Vote for my amendment, and show America's veterans we will not accept 
discrimination against them, and want them properly represented in the 
work force.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?
  If not, pursuant to House Resolution 453, the Clerk will read the 
last two lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1997''.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 453, proceedings will now 
resume on the amendment on which further proceedings were postponed: 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], as 
amended.


              amendment offered by mr. defazio, as amended

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the request for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], as 
amended, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 208, not voting 37, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 246]

                               AYES--190

     Abercrombie
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Campbell
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manton
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                               NOES--208

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H6389]]

                             NOT VOTING--37

     Ackerman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bunning
     Cardin
     Clinger
     Coleman
     Conyers
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Doyle
     English
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Hayes
     Holden
     Johnson, E. B.
     King
     Lincoln
     Maloney
     Markey
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McHugh
     Moakley
     Myers
     Neal
     Quinn
     Saxton
     Souder
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Yates
     Zeliff

                              {time}  2052

  Messers. ALLARD, STOCKMAN, and TRAFICANT changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MARTINI, Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana, and Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD 
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 any further amendments to the bill?
  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Jones) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that the Committee, 
having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3610) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 453, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jones). Under the rule, the previous 
question is ordered.
  It is a separate vote demanded on any amendments? If not, the Chair 
will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and the 
third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 278, 
nays 126, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 247]

                               YEAS--278

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

                               NAYS--126

     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Camp
     Campbell
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chrysler
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stupak
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Ackerman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Cardin
     Clinger
     Conyers
     Cunningham
     English
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Hayes
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lincoln
     Maloney
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McHugh
     Meehan
     Moakley
     Myers
     Neal
     Richardson
     Saxton
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Yates
     Zeliff

                             {time}   2112

  The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote:

       Mr. Bilbray for, with Mr. Ackerman, against.

  Mr. CLAY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconisder was laid on the table.

                          ____________________