[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7742-H7744]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3230) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.


               motion to instruct offered by mr. dellums

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Dellums moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on

[[Page H7743]]

     the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate 
     amendment to the bill H.R. 3230 be instructed to insist 
     upon--
       (1) a total level of funding for operations and maintenance 
     not less than the total of the amounts provided in section 
     301 of the House bill;
       (2) a level of funding for military personnel not less than 
     the amount provided in section 421 of the House bill; and
       (3) a total level of funding for military construction and 
     military family housing not less than the total of the 
     amounts provided in division B of the House bill.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Weldon] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees today because of 
my concern that the resolution of issues between the House-passed 
defense authorization bill and the Senate amendment not be concluded at 
the expense of our men and women in uniform and their ability to 
perform their mission.
  I am concerned that the conferees may overlook these vital 
requirements in favor of the plus-ups in major acquisition programs 
that the service chiefs have not asked for and for which there exists, 
in this gentleman's opinion, no legitimate military requirement.
  Several important accounts are at stake, Mr. Speaker. We have very 
real quality-of-life concerns for our men and women in uniform and a 
need to ensure that our military construction accounts are funded 
sufficiently to meet those requirements. We are conducting operations 
and training that demand real resources, and our readiness accounts 
should not be depleted. Perhaps, most importantly, we need to ensure 
that our military personnel receive the pay and benefits for which they 
are more than deserving. The quickest way to a hollow force is the loss 
of neglected personnel.

  Mr. Speaker, a consistent theme of this year's defense debate has 
been the ``modernization crisis'' caused by a ``procurement holiday.''
  In this gentleman's opinion, Mr. Speaker, the testimony before our 
committee demonstrates the validity of the administration's 
modernization strategy. By being able to utilize the equipment made 
excess by the drawdown of our forces, we have been able to forestall 
procurement expenditures into the future.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House should stand by its authorization 
levels in the personnel, military construction, and readiness accounts, 
and send a clear message to the other body that in resolving the 
differences between our two bills that we will make only those 
investments in modernization that can be justified by requirements, by 
development and testing, and in relationship to our other priorities.
  Last year the House passed, nearly unanimously, a measure instructing 
conferees not to recede from the House readiness funding level. 
Nonetheless, some readiness funding was indeed sacrificed to save 
procurement programs that the service chiefs had not requested.
  In offering this motion, Mr. Speaker, it is this gentleman's hope 
that we will be able again to send a message to the other body that we 
remain serious about our commitment to our personnel, their quality of 
life, and their readiness, and that we will not retreat this year from 
our baseline commitment to meeting those needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the gentleman from South Carolina, 
Floyd Spence, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on National 
Security, and agree with my colleague in the motion to instruct. We on 
this side have looked at the motion and agree with the contents and 
think it is well stated. Certainly we agree with it, and we think our 
actions speak to the points raised in the motion to instruct.
  The chairman of the full committee would be here, but at this point 
in time he is joining a number of our colleagues as we in this body pay 
tribute to the distinguished former chairman of our committee, Les 
Aspin, in unveiling the portrait of him which will hang in our 
committee hearing room. So Chairman Spence is speaking at this point in 
time or else he would be here on the floor to lead this discussion.
  But I rise to say to my friend and colleague and distinguished 
ranking member of the full committee that we agree with him and we 
agree with the motion in terms of the three key issues and areas that 
he has focused on, and we think our actions in the bill in fact speak 
to those issues. We think that we have addressed the issue of 
modernization but, at the same point in time, have taken those steps in 
terms of readiness, in terms of quality of life, that will allow us to 
keep up the morale and protect the well-being of those troops that are 
serving this country today around the world.
  In the area of key personnel actions, Mr. Speaker, we have included a 
4.6 percent increase in the bachelor allowance for quarters to combine 
the department's highly touted underfunded 6-year effort to reduce out-
of-pocket housing expenses. We support a 3 percent military pay raise. 
We provide for a substantial package of enhancements for permanent 
change of station move reimbursements, and we establish a minimum 
variable housing allowance to ensure all service personnel are 
compensated at a level sufficient to acquire safe and adequate housing 
in high-cost areas.
  In the area of key infrastructure improvements, Mr. Speaker, we 
provide $214 million, 38 percent above the President's request, in 
added funding to the construction of new barracks and dormitories. We 
provide $303 million, 45 percent above the President's request, in 
added funding for the construction of new family housing units and the 
improvement of existing units. We provide $28 million, nearly 5 times 
the President's request, in added funding to build new child 
development centers. We provide $25 million, more than double the 
President's request in added funding to support the ability of the 
Secretary of Defense to enter into public-private partnerships to 
produce more military housing at a lower cost to the taxpayer.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, in terms of key morale, welfare and recreation 
improvements, we provide $60 million in additional funding for high 
priority MWR programs identified by the Defense Science Board Task 
Force on Quality of Life.
  Mr. Speaker, there are just a few of the highlights, but they are 
totally consistent with the points raised by the distinguished ranking 
member of this committee. They are well founded, and therefore, on 
behalf of Floyd Spence, I would say that the majority agrees with this 
motion to instruct.
  We look forward to working with the distinguished ranking member as 
we move toward the conference and, as conferees are appointed, to 
negotiate the differences that we have with our Senate counterparts and 
reach a final bill that hopefully the President will sign into law.
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by 
my good friend and colleague from California.
  The military personnel provisions passed by the House of 
Representatives as part of the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization 
bill solidly support quality of life and readiness efforts. These 
provisions reflect the continued support of this House for our military 
service members.
  To highlight just a few of these provisions, the military personnel 
titles include a 3 percent military pay raise, requested by the 
President, as well as a 4.6 percent increase in the basic allowance for 
quarters--BAQ. This increase in BAQ will fully fund a 1 percent 
reduction in out-of-pocket housing expenses for service members.
  The military personnel titles passed by the House provide the 
Secretary of Defense with the authority to establish a minimum variable 
housing allowance so that even very junior service members can acquire 
safe and adequate housing in high cost areas. Additionally, there are 
provisions that make several enhancements to the reimbursements for 
permanent change of station moves. Military members should not be 
forced to use their personal savings to offset the cost of a 
Government-directed move.
  To minimize the readiness impact of continued shortfalls in the Army 
military personnel account, the House bill includes nearly $150 million 
more than the President's budget request for the Army military 
personnel account.

[[Page H7744]]

  The House bill also restores the nearly half a billion dollar 
shortfall in the defense health program. Medical care consistently 
rates as a top quality of life issue. Not resolving this issue would 
have dire consequences for active-duty family members and retirees who 
have a difficult enough time already trying to obtain medical care in 
military facilities. Failure to meet this need would involve a 
significant breach of faith with our military members and retirees.
  I remind my colleagues that the most important component of readiness 
is people. The people serving in uniform today were selectively 
recruited and carefully trained. They are truly the finest force that 
the United States has ever had.
  Readiness must be preserved both in the near-term and in the long-
term. Readiness problems compound quickly and cannot be repaired easily 
or inexpensively. The military personnel that we put in harm's way 
deserve a full and continuing commitment from this Congress. The House 
of Representatives has met that commitment in the DOD bill we passed.
  The military personnel provisions of the House bill continue the 
progress toward an improved quality of life for our military men and 
women while ensuring a well-trained, ready force. It confirms our 
commitment to readiness, training and taking care of the men and women 
who serve in our Armed Forces.
  I urge my colleagues to ratify their effort by voting for Mr. 
Dellum's motion to instruct House conferees to support the higher House 
figure for military personnel and readiness programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my 
distinguished colleague for his remarks. I appreciate his comments and 
further appreciate the support. This is a bipartisan motion to instruct 
conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  The motion to instruct was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________