[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H9811-H9824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3230, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 1997

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 498 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 498

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3230) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     1997 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to 
     prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1997, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for one hour.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 498 provides for the consideration of 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 3230, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration. It further provides that the conference 
report shall be considered as read.
  The waiver includes a waiver of the 3-day layout rule, as the report 
was filed only Tuesday. This was necessary so that the House could 
complete consideration of this measure before the August recess 
tomorrow. Further, the report has been available in committee offices 
so Members and staff have had ample time to review it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule that provides for expeditious 
consideration of this critically important legislation. I urge support 
of the rule. I will not bother to get into the details of the bill. It 
has been debated at considerable length. We all know the contents.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge prompt action on the rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson], our ambassador at large, for the purposes of 
engaging in a colloquy.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of entering into 
a colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
  As the gentleman knows, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico 
will have a direct impact on many of our constituents in that State. 
While I support amending the land withdrawal act, I would like to 
clarify some aspects of this amending language.
  First, I have concerns about designating November 1997 as the opening 
date for the facility. If new health and safety problems arise prior to 
start-up, I want to be assured that resolving these concerns will take 
precedence over the opening date.
  Secondly, the issue of proper oversight is an important one. I want 
to ensure that the EPA will have a full capability to provide for the 
safe operation and regulation of WIPP.
  Finally, I am concerned about the exemption from RCRA no-migration 
standards. As the gentleman knows, I have advocated for the 
implementation of an independent review of EPA's decision to strike the 
RCRA no-migration rules, possibly by the National Academy of Sciences. 
I want to be assured that the deletion of RCRA no-migration standards 
will not result in a degradation of environmental standards at WIPP.
  Let me say that I appreciate the work of the gentleman. The work of 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] in responsibly moving this 
language forward. I do support the provisions affecting WIPP, but would 
appreciate any comment he has on these matters.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I truly thank the gentleman from New 
Mexico, and it has been a great pleasure working with him on this 
particular situation. I do appreciate his concerns. A timely opening of 
WIPP is very important. It is equally critical that the facility opens 
and operates in a very safe manner.
  First, the 1997 opening date is not a hard, statutory requirement, 
but is

[[Page H9812]]

contained in a sense of Congress statement. Both EPA and DOE feel that 
this date is achievable. Obviously the health and safety issues are 
very, very important, and language has been included to reflect that 
the site should meet all applicable health and safety standards before 
disposal operations commence.
  This subtitle closely mirrors legislation already approved by the 
full Committee on Commerce and preserves a strong regulatory role for 
EPA at WIPP. The facility is also regulated by several other entities, 
including the State of New Mexico. The combination of these different 
regulators provides for a broad oversight and regulatory base.
  Finally, I can understand the gentleman's concerns about the no-
migration standard. As he knows, I have always felt that the Federal 
Government should be held to the same environmental standards accepted 
by any other entity in America. This legislation does meet that test. 
There will be no loss of environmental protection, no impact on human 
health and safety, and no reduction of the overall safety standards 
under this language.
  The EPA is confident that this regulatory regime will provide and 
protect human health and the environment. I would like to enter into 
the Record correspondence from EPA which does express this view.
  I do so much appreciate the gentleman's concern for his constituents, 
as I would, and his cooperative work on the subtitle. I also want to 
recognize the very valiant efforts of the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Skeen], without whose help we would not be here today. Again, I 
appreciate the gentleman's support and his allowing me to clarify these 
matters.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following correspondence:

                              Environmental Protection Agency,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 1996.
     Hon. Tom Udall,
     Attorney General of New Mexico,
     Santa Fe, NM.
       Dear Mr. Udall: The purpose of this letter is to follow-up 
     on our telephone conversation of April 1, 1996, and respond 
     to your letter of April 4, 1996, regarding the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's (EPA) role in the regulation of the Waste 
     Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).
       The Administration is presently formulating its position on 
     H.R. 1663, the ``Skeen-Schaefer Bill'' amending the WIPP Land 
     Withdrawal Act (Pub. L. 102-579). I appreciated hearing your 
     views about the legislation and am pleased we had the 
     opportunity to discuss these important issues. The Agency 
     believes that the amended H.R. 1663 is a sound bill and makes 
     critical improvements over its antecedent. As you are aware, 
     the Skeen Bill, as originally proposed, severely limited 
     EPA's regulatory oversight of WIPP and, we believe, did not 
     provide adequate protection of human health and the 
     environment. Mr. Schaefer's amendments retain EPA as the 
     independent regulator of the WIPP, eliminates extraneous 
     requirements, and leaves intact the provisions of the 1992 
     WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) that require EPA to certify 
     whether the WIPP facility will comply with the disposal 
     regulations in accordance with public rule-making procedures.
       You specifically expressed concern about the impact of the 
     proposed legislation on the WIPP certification process. In 
     particular, that review of individual chapters of the 
     Department of Energy's (DOE) compliance application by EPA 
     would require the Agency to commit to a position on the 
     sufficiency of each chapter without public input. While it is 
     true that EPA will review individual chapters prior to 
     receipt of the full application, the Agency will make no 
     determination on the adequacy of any part of the application 
     until: 1) EPA has received the full application from the 
     department; and 2) public comments have been considered. In 
     fact, the Agency has received the first of these chapters and 
     placed it in the certification docket (No. A-93-02) on May 1, 
     1996. We will be providing written comments to DOE on these 
     chapters. The written comments will also be placed in the 
     public dockets.
       You also raised concerns about the effect of the proposed 
     legislation on the public's opportunity to provide comment on 
     DOE's application. As in the past, EPA will continue to 
     foster an open public process. As you will note in the final 
     compliance criteria (40 CFR Part 194), EPA will hold two 120-
     day public comment periods after it receives DOE's full 
     compliance application. The proposed legislation will not 
     affect the process established in the compliance criteria. 
     Furthermore, EPA never planned for or created any process for 
     formal public comment on the completeness of the application. 
     Therefore, since DOE is providing the Agency with individual 
     chapters prior to submission of the full application, the 
     public will have an additional opportunity to comment on, and 
     additional time to review, the individual chapters, via EPA's 
     public docket.
       Additionally, you were concerned that the proposed H.R. 
     1663 removes the ability of the Administrator to enforce 
     compliance of the WIPP with any law, regulation or permit 
     requirement described in Sec. 9(a)(1) of the LWA. We feel 
     that EPA's ability to ensure compliance with these 
     environmental laws is not compromised by removal of this 
     provision since: 1) the environmental laws described in the 
     LWA contain their own enforcement provisions; and 2) 40 CFR 
     Part 194 imposes requirements that DOE perform remedial 
     actions if the administrator determines WIPP to be in non-
     compliance with the transuranic waste disposal standards.
       Further, with regard to H.R. 1663, you expressed concern 
     about the WIPP being used as a repository for transuranic 
     wastes that did not result from a defense activity. The 
     proposed legislation does not alter the definition of 
     exposure or capacity limits of either remote- or contact-
     handled wastes set forth in the LWA. If EPA were to certify 
     the WIPP, this provision would allow for disposal of a 
     relatively small amount of waste from a site in West Valley, 
     NY. If WIPP were capable of accepting this waste within the 
     capacity limits of the LWA, it would be imprudent to 
     needlessly spend taxpayer money for a site similar to WIPP 
     for such a small amount of transuranic waste simply because 
     the process which generated the waste was not defense 
     related.
       Lastly, I am disappointed that you have elected to bring a 
     legal challenge against EPA's WIPP compliance criteria 
     published on February 9, 1996. The EPA considered the views 
     of all interested parties, including the comments and 
     suggestions made by your office, in deciding the contents of 
     the final criteria. As you know, EPA held two public comment 
     periods totaling 135 days, and conducted a series of public 
     hearings in New Mexico. Ultimately, the Administrator of EPA, 
     exercising her independent judgment, determined the contents 
     of the final criteria. We believe EPA's criteria are sound 
     and will effectively protect public health and the 
     environment.
       I want to assure you that EPA will keep communication lines 
     open as it undertakes the public rulemaking proceeding to 
     certify whether the WIPP facility will comply with the final 
     disposal regulations. We recognize the importance of this 
     matter to you and all of the residents of New Mexico.
       If you have questions regarding this letter or any other 
     concerns, please contact Frank Marcinowski of my staff at 
     (202) 233-9310.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Mary D. Nichols,
                    Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I support the 
provisions affecting WIPP.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and this conference 
report, which authorizes the programs which provide for our Nation's 
defense which is our common defense. In these uncertain times, which, 
as we all know, grow more dangerous every day, it is of vital 
importance that this component of our country's protection continues to 
be strong. Our foreign enemies--those who seek to disrupt and 
ultimately destroy our democratic way of life--must know of our 
commitment to a strong and capable military able to protect this great 
Nation. This conference report is a positive step in insuring that our 
military capability remains strong and vigilant and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, the conferees have wisely dropped contentious social 
issues from this agreement, and in doing so, have taken the proper 
course of action in ensuring that this authorization can be signed into 
law by the President. While the funding levels are still significantly 
higher than those requested, I feel confident that this is a bill that 
can be signed. The increases in funding levels are not for frivolous 
projects, rather they provide for faster acquisition of important 
weapons systems which had been planned for purchase in later years.
  The agreement does not contain provisions from last year's vetoed 
bill which had required the deployment of a national missile defense 
system by the year 2003, nor does it contain language which might have 
been a violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. As Members 
know, these issues, among others, provoked a veto in 1993, and their 
exclusion this year certainly enhances the chance that this agreement 
will become law.
  This agreement contains provisions which will require that the U.S. 
Government live up to its obligations. The bill contains a 3-percent 
pay raise for military personnel and increases housing allowances. The 
agreement addresses a long and shamefully overlooked matter by 
authorizing the award of the Medal of Honor to African-Americans who 
served in World War II and who distinguished themselves by performing 
with gallantry above and beyond

[[Page H9813]]

the call of duty. The agreement also contains language which will 
finally recognize the sacrifice and heroism of those Vietnamese 
nationals who participated in special operations in North Vietnam or 
Laos on behalf of the United States Government and who were 
subsequently captured and imprisoned by the Communist Vietnamese.
  I am particularly pleased that the conference agreement contains $1.5 
billion for continued development and acquisition of six V-22 Osprey 
tiltroter aircraft, as well as funds for the acquisition of six 
additional F-16 fighters. The conference agreement includes $2 billion 
in funding for research and development for the next-generation 
tactical fighter, the F-22. Also provided is $2.4 billion for the 
acquisition of nine C-17 transport aircraft. All these aircraft are 
important components in our national defense system and the conference 
is to be commended for funding them in this agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule and a good bill and I urge their 
adoption.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the 
conference report. I do so mainly because this bill could let the 
Nation's largest polluter, the Federal Government, more specifically 
the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, GSA, and the 
Department of Energy off the hook. Under this provision, section 334 
would directly amend CERCLA, otherwise known as Superfund, a law that 
is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce.
  If my colleagues have defense or other Federal establishments within 
their district, they better be very careful before they vote for this 
legislation. The legislation will change current law to allow the 
Federal Government to transfer contaminated property that it owns prior 
to the completion of the required cleanup of the property.
  Remember, this is contamination with high-level hazardous wastes, 
high-level nuclear wastes and other terribly dangerous substances. This 
provision may actually delay the cleanup of contaminated Federal 
properties. This provision will impose upon citizens of this country 
the possibility or even the probability that there are no adequate or 
enforceable assurances that the cleanup will be completed by the party 
who buys the property in a timely manner and in a way which is 
protective of the human health and environment. The provision should be 
of particular concern to all of my colleagues who have Federal 
properties in their district.
  This is a defense authorization bill, and, if they vote for it, my 
colleagues should be aware that this provision applies not only to 
defense facilities but also properties owned by the Department of 
Energy, the Department of the Interior and any property under the 
controls of the General Services Administration. Unfortunately, this 
provision has not been subject to hearings or examination by the 
authorizing committees, and no one knows exactly the level of peril 
which is imposed upon the people of this country.
  Equally important is the fact that it has no discernible support 
except amongst the Federal polluters, and it is interesting to note 
that people who address the question of pollution of our environment, 
and who are concerned about protecting the citizens of this country 
from dangerously contaminated and environmentally degraded areas have 
expressed particular concern.
  The Department of Defense has provided no examples of the need for 
the sweeping provisions in section 334, but the attorneys general of 
the States of Michigan, Washington, New Mexico, Texas, Minnesota, and 
Colorado have written to express their strong opposition to this 
provision. On behalf of its quarter-million members, the Natural 
Resources Defense Council has also opposed this provision. Amongst 
other concerns, these writers question the glaring absence of criteria 
for determining the suitability of contaminated Federal lands for 
transfer and the enforceability of cleanup requirements. Indeed the 
level of cleanup required is in question, insofar as whether the 
cleanup would be adequate to protect the health and the environment of 
people who would be affected and who live in the neighborhood.
  I urge a rejection of the rule, and I urge a rejection of the 
conference report.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and 
the conference report on the Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and conference 
report on the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. I do so 
principally because it could allow Federal agencies to abdicate their 
responsibility to clean up hazardous waste sites and address other 
toxic conditions that they created. It could dump onto States, local 
governments, and the public the burden of cleaning up federally created 
toxic waste sites. This includes some of the Nation's most contaminated 
hazardous waste sites created by the Department of Defense and 
Department of Energy.
  Section 334 of the conference report would fundamentally change 
current law by allowing the Federal Government to transfer contaminated 
federally owned Superfund sites before completing cleanup necessary to 
protect human health and the environment.
  Supporters of the provision may claim that it contains safeguards to 
ensure that the Federal Government will perform cleanups after 
transferring its contaminated property to other persons. However, 
serious questions have been raised by State Attorneys General and other 
stakeholders as to the adequacy and enforceability of the supposed 
safeguards to ensure that timely and protective cleanups will occur 
after the Federal Government no longer owns the property it 
contaminated.
  I am particularly concerned that this far-reaching and significant 
amendment to the Superfund law is being made without any consideration 
of its ramifications by the two committees of jurisdiction, the 
Transportation and the Commerce Committees, and without consideration 
of the views of States, communities, and the public. Letters of 
opposition from the Attorneys General of the States of Michigan, 
Minnesota, Colorado, California, Texas and Washington, and from the 
National Association of Attorneys General and the Natural Resources 
Defense Counsel, evidence the public's grave concerns with this 
provision. Moreover, there has been no demonstration of any need for 
the provision.
  If this provision becomes law, Congress will have eliminated any 
certainty that federally created toxic waste sites in our communities 
will be cleaned up in a timely and protective manner. This provision 
goes in the wrong direction. The Federal Government should be leading 
the way in cleaning up toxic waste sites. Instead, we are making it 
easier for the Federal Government to avoid the cleanup responsibilities 
that we expect of private interests.
  This provision should be removed from the conference report and 
considered by the committees of jurisdiction with the appropriate 
hearings and markups.
  Mr. Speaker, I also am very troubled by an amendment made in 
conference to another provision in the report. The House bill required 
the Navy to develop and implement a program to monitor the ecological 
effects of organotin, a highly toxic ingredient in paints used on Navy 
vessels. I agree that it is appropriate for the Navy to study the 
environmental impacts of toxic materials it uses on its vessels. 
However, section 333 of the conference report adds a provision shifting 
to the Environmental Protection Agency the obligation to pay such sums 
as are necessary for the Navy to develop and implement its program. 
This raid on EPA's budget to supplement the astronomical budget of the 
Department of Defense is entirely unacceptable.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to note my understanding that 
section 324 of the conference report, which amends the Act to Prevent 
Pollution from Ships, is not intended to limit the Navy's efforts in 
continuing to develop and implement more efficient and environmentally 
beneficial garbage disposal technologies.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of our time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page H9814]]


  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 498, I call up 
the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). Pursuant to House Resolution 
498, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Tuesday, July 30, 1996, at page H 8985).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to expedite these proceedings, 
it will be my intention to limit my remarks and also those of the other 
members of our committee who are going to speak. I know everyone is 
anxious to get to a vote in a hurry, and so we will do our best to get 
there. There will be about two speakers we have to her from to carry on 
a colloquy and some important things to be said, but aside from that we 
are going to try to limit our remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a good conference report. As a matter of fact, 
there is $1.1 billion less in spending in that bill that passed the 
House. Like all conference reports, there were concessions on both 
sides in order to arrive at a conclusion.
  The Department of Defense, I have been in touch with them. Secretary 
Perry supports this report.
  I want to thank all of the members of the committee and the panel, 
panel chairmen for all they have done to bring this report to us and 
especially the staff who have worked hard and long into the wee hours 
of the morning to enable us to get to this point this soon. We have set 
a record, I think, for bringing this report back in the period of time, 
and so I am going to also thank the ranking minority member, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] for his cooperation. We 
could not have been here otherwise without that.

  Like the House-passed bill, the conference report takes a balanced 
approach toward addressing the numerous quality of life, readiness, and 
modernization problems our military is facing today. The bill provides 
for military personnel and their families who represent the heart of 
the all-volunteer force. It enhances core military readiness by 
increasing funding for a number of underfunded key readiness and 
training programs. And like last year's bill, it once again makes great 
strides in addressing many of the serious problems plaguing the 
administration's inadequate modernization program to ensure that our 
troops of tomorrow maintain the technological edge they enjoy on the 
battlefield today.
  The conference report itself is consistent with the Fiscal Year 1997 
Budget Resolution and provides $265.6 billion in budget authority for 
Department of Defense and Department of Energy programs. It authorizes 
approximately $1.1 billion less in defense spending than the House-
passed bill, and represents a real decline in spending of approximately 
2.1 percent over current levels. The fact that this bill authorizes 
defense spending at a level that is $11.2 billion greater than the 
President's request yet still reflects spending decline, speaks volumes 
about the extent to which the President's defense budget is 
underfunded.
  On the major issues the conference has to address--issues such as 
abortion, depots, gays in the military, theater missile defense 
demarcation, ABM Treaty multilateralization among others--this 
conference report clearly represents a compromise among many interested 
parties, including the administration. On balance, this conference 
report strikes a good balance between many competing and conflicting 
interests and deserves the support of all members.
  I will leave discussion of the many important initiatives in the 
conference report to my colleagues on the National Security Committee 
who have worked very hard over the past several weeks--and really since 
this process started back in February--to get this conference report to 
the floor this week. In particular, I would like to recognize the 
diligence, dedication and cooperation of the subcommittee and panel 
chairmen and ranking members.
  As always, I would also like to thank the gentleman from California, 
the committee's ranking member, for his cooperation. While we may 
disagree on the substance, my colleague's support of the committee 
institutionally and his support for the process improves the work we 
all do.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me thank the staffs of the National 
Security Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee. They have 
worked tirelessly all year so that we could have this conference report 
before the House and Senate prior to the August recess. They have done 
an outstanding job on a large and complex piece of legislation--and in 
record time.
  Mr. Speaker, raising and maintaining the military is one of 
Congress's most fundamental responsibilities. This conference report 
reflects the seriousness with which the National Security Committee 
takes its responsibility. As a result, it has strong bipartisan backing 
in both the House and the Senate as well as the support of the 
Secretary of Defense so I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we too will attempt to expedite the process although I 
do have a few Members who choose to speak and exercise that option to 
do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I Rise in opposition to the conference report on the 
National Defense Authorization Bill for fiscal year 1997.
  First, let me say that the process by which this bill was shaped this 
year was much improved over last year. My colleagues will remember that 
the president warned that if certain actions were not taken on the 
fiscal year 1996 bill, that he would have to veto it, and that is 
indeed what happened.
  This year, several of the major concerns of the administration were 
attended to as this bill was worked out in conference. For instance:
  The section that would require unilateral enactment of the 
``demonstrated capability'' standard for U.S. compliance with the ABM 
treaty, along with the prohibition on the use of funds to apply any 
other standard was dropped.
  The section that would require Senate approval of any succession 
agreement adding new parties to the ABM treaty was dropped.
  The section that would again, Mr. Speaker, require the discharge of 
servicemembers who are HIV-positive was dropped.
  The section that would reinstate the total ban on gay men and 
lesbians in the military was dropped.
  However, Mr. Speaker, the President has also warned that there are 
other problems with the bill--foremost among them a spending level 
authorized by this bill which in this gentleman's opinion is too high.
  Also:
  The section that would repeal the provision in law that prevents 
servicewomen from obtaining safe abortions at military treatment 
facilities overseas was dropped from the bill in conference.
  The section that prevents the sale of constitutionally protected 
literature on military bases was retained in the bill.
  As onerous as these and some other provisions in the bill are, and a 
number of my colleagues in the context of the discussion and debate on 
the rule alluded to many of them, I believe that the President will in 
the end sign this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, I oppose this conference report. I do so 
primarily because the funding level that is authorized by this bill is 
a substantial and unnecessary increase over what was requested by the 
administration for defense spending in the coming fiscal year. I 
believe that this authorization bill in its entirety takes this 
country's military spending, trends and policy initiatives in the wrong 
direction. The overall budget represents increased military spending on 
items not requested by either the administration or the service chiefs.
  This is not only unwarranted, Mr. Speaker, it is shortsighted. It 
will only lead to large cuts in defense in the outyears as the funding 
tails associated with these programs come due. As a consequence, we are 
insuring that we will soon be faced with the decisions that will result 
in either cuts in the quality of life programs combined with reductions 
in force structure or cuts in planned modernization programs which

[[Page H9815]]

will have to be done in midstream resulting in more cost to the 
taxpayers.
  Ironically, Mr. Speaker, and I would reemphasize ironically, this 
will be causing the very situation we all agreed that we meant to 
prevent; that is, the work that Members thought had been accomplished 
over the last 2 years will eventually be negated because of this 
spending binge.
  With these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon]
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and 
chairman of the committee for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for 
their cooperation in bringing forth what I think is an excellent bill 
that we all should get behind and support. It is an excellent bill 
because it deals with the quality-of-life issues, issues involving pay 
raise, cost of living, housing, child care, and all those things that 
are important for our military personnel around the world.
  It also deals with our readiness problem to make sure our troops are 
properly prepared.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today, however, to ask for the support of our 
colleagues because it deals in a real way with the two major threats 
that I think we face over the next several years: that caused from 
terrorism, and that caused from the proliferation of missiles and 
weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, we fully fund increases in the area of terrorism, far 
above what the administration requested. Long before incidents were 
occurring in this country, as we have seen this year, it was this 
Congress, led by this chairman, who had the foresight to put additional 
funds into chemical and biological technology, into efforts to allow us 
to better train those civilian personnel around the country who have to 
respond and better prepare our military. We deal with terrorism in this 
bill, and it is a very important priority for us.
  Secondarily, we fully fund missile defense technologies, national, 
theater, cruise, and space-based sensors. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we 
fund the Nautilus Program for Israel; even though the administration 
never requested dollars for that program, we fully fund it to make sure 
that Israel is secure. Unlike the past requests of the administration 
where they tried to zero out funds for the high-energy laser program, 
we continue the funding.
  In the R&D area, we maintain our technology base with a robust 
funding profile. We put money in for dual-use technology and 
capabilities. We fund the new ocean partnerships initiative, with the 
Navy in the lead.
  But I am disappointed in two instances, Mr. Speaker. We should have 
had the ABM provisions in here dealing with multilateralization and 
with the demarcation issue. But all is not lost, because in the 
compromise with the Senate we remained silent. We took out our language 
and they took out their language.
  What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? That means prevailing law is the 
case. When this administration attempts to amend the ABM Treaty, they 
must bring back those changes to the appropriate bodies of this 
institution, the Congress, to achieve support and ratification.
  So when this administration tries to dumb down our capabilities 
through demarcation negotiations in Geneva or through the 
multilateralization of the ABM Treaty, the Senate will have a rightful 
role to play in approving those changes before they in fact become law. 
So all is not lost.
  I applaud once again my chairman for the outstanding job he has done 
for our subcommittee chairman. I think we have a good bill here that 
everyone should get behind. It may not be perfect, but it certainly 
deals with the needs of those men and women who are serving our country 
today.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
  (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
report. I do hope the President of the United States will sign the 
bill. There are parts of this legislation that he did not like, and 
they were taken out. In the conference with the Senate, there were 
areas that I had a particular interest in. They were dropped in the 
conference. So I accept, Mr. Speaker, that you never get all you want 
in these massive bills. I think it is still good legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I have only served on two committees most of the time 
that I have been in the Congress, which is the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs and the Committee on National Security. I have enjoyed working 
on both of these committees and am very proud of the excellent veterans 
programs we have, better than any other Nation, for our veterans. With 
the defense bill today, we still have the strongest defense force in 
the world.
  Mr. Speaker, this will be the last time I will be involved in the 
defense bill. I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums] on my side of the aisle, for his courtesies over the many, 
many years. I say the same for the gentleman from South Carolina, Floyd 
Spence, our chairman, for his fairness; and to my colleagues and 
staffers on our committee, I thank them for the help and understanding 
they have shown to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been a wonderful ride for me over the last 28 
years. I support this legislation.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  (Mr. HEFLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
agreement on H.R. 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1997.
  This bipartisan legislation will make significant improvements in our 
military installations and facilities.
  The conference agreement would add $850 million above the President's 
request for military construction and military family housing programs. 
When the bill left the House, it strongly emphasized needed 
enhancements of the quality of life for military personnel and their 
families. The conference agreement on military construction reflects 
the philosophy of the House position.
  Sixty percent of the added funding above the line will be dedicated 
to military housing and other quality of life improvements. Earlier 
this week, the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities 
which I chair, held a hearing on the quality of life issue. The senior 
enlisted officers of the military services testified about the link 
between the quality of life for military personnel, retention, and 
readiness.
  We also heard from a very articulate group of dedicated military 
spouses who spoke about the practical problems they face in military 
life. No one who heard their stories could ever suggest that the 
additional housing, child care centers, and other improvements 
contained in this bill are not a wise use of our resources.
  With this bill, we will commit an additional $201 million to the 
President's request of $562 million for troop housing. For just over 
3,000 military families, we will provide an additional $266 million to 
construct new quarters or improve existing units--a 39 percent increase 
to the request. For child development centers, the bill would add $30 
million for nine needed centers in addition to funding the $6 million 
construction cost for the two centers requested by the Administration.
  This bill also funds important facilities improvements to enhance the 
operational and training requirements of the active forces as well as 
the reserve components.
  I am grateful for the strong bipartisan support for the military 
construction portion of this authorization conference report, led by 
the ranking member of the subcommittee, Solomon Ortiz. I am also 
particularly pleased that Chairman Vucanovich and Mr. Hefner with the 
Appropriations Committee have successfully brought back an 
appropriations conference report that supports this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3230.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference 
report. I want to recognize that while there are many good things in 
this bill, I am disappointed by two items contained in the bill, one of 
which I know

[[Page H9816]]

many of us have had discussions here with regard to and we will take up 
in separate legislation regarding the missing persons, the MIA issue, 
Missing Personnel Act.
  The other issue is concerned with the provision contained in the 
cooperative threat reduction portion of the bill. While I agree with 
measures that reduce the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, I 
am concerned about the language in the bill that provides emergency 
powers to the military. I believe this additional exception to the 
Posse Comitatus Act represents a further drift toward increased 
military involvement in domestic law enforcement activities.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana, a member of the conference, yielding for a 
colloquy.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentleman worked to remove very 
disturbing legislative language from the conference report that weakens 
posse comitatus protections. The language constitutes a serious erosion 
of the historic and firmly held belief in our country that our military 
should not become involved in domestic law enforcement.
  This principle is enshrined in posse comitatus provisions in our 
criminal code. However, in the conference report, the military is, in 
certain situations, given the power to make civilian arrests, conduct 
searches and seizures, and gather domestic intelligence. While these 
powers are limited to situations involving weapons of mass destruction, 
they are extremely troublesome because they are unnecessary and 
directly involve the military in domestic law enforcement.
  I fought hard to have these provisions removed, and I know that the 
gentleman from Indiana did the same. I regret that the conference 
report retains the Senate language, which was never presented to this 
House for proper consideration. It is my understanding, however, we 
will be working together at the earliest opportunity to have these ill-
conceived provisions removed.
  Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the 
gentleman from Georgia that in subtitle A under ``Domestic 
Preparedness,'' section 1313, military assistance to civilian law 
enforcement officials in emergency situations involving biological and 
chemical weapons, there is an exception that is granted to the military 
that they are not authorized to participate in the following actions: 
Number one, arrest; number two, any direct participation in conducting 
a search or seizure of evidence to a violation of this section, or 
direct participation in the collection of intelligence for law 
enforcement.
  But this goes beyond that, Mr. Speaker. Subsection 382(2)(b) is the 
section on which I want to work with the gentleman in the next military 
defense bill to remove that provision from this bill, and I want to 
salute the gentleman from Georgia's leadership to strike the proper 
balance between individual civil liberties and the protection of an 
American citizen's rights, along with the Posse Comitatus Act and its 
restraints upon the U.S. military's involvement in domestic law 
enforcement.
  I encourage Members to vote for this bill. We will work toward that 
end.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman's support.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  (Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, for American uniformed personnel currently deployed 
overseas in contingencies such as Bosnia, Korea, the Sinai, and Saudi 
Arabia, I rise in support of this conference agreement, and urge my 
colleagues to work towards this passage.
  This agreement addresses my personal concern about the way in which 
military personnel may be employed in the future. It contains necessary 
funding for today's readiness and quality-of-life matters and, no less 
importantly, accelerates critical military programs of tomorrow, 
allowing for purchases of new equipment sooner rather than later.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter], the chairman of our Subcommittee on 
Procurement.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. Let me start out by thanking the gentleman for all the great work 
that he has done on this bill, the great leadership he has given us, 
and the fairness and decency with which he has conducted the entire 
oversight process. Let me also give kudos to my friend, the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Dellums, for being an outstanding minority Member 
in this process, and ranking member, and really sowing the seeds for 
the bipartisanship that we have had in this year.
  I want to thank all of the subcommittee chairmen who worked this 
bill, because they are all great people; the gentleman from California, 
Bob Dornan, the gentleman from New York, Mr. McHugh, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hefley, the 
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bateman, and all of their counterparts on 
the Democrat side, and my old friend and compadre, the gentleman from 
Missouri, Ike Skelton, for the great bipartisanship that he displayed. 
I remember the meetings we had, some in his office, some in my office, 
working military issues.
  Mr. Speaker, we undertook to do a few things in this bill that were 
important for the American people. We had hearings on the safety of our 
fighter aircraft that were crashed in a series of crashes beginning in 
January of this year. Both F-14s and AV-8Bs went down in high numbers. 
We had good oversight hearings and we came up with fixes and 
recommendations by the Navy and the Marines that we followed. We put 
those fixes into this bill. We spent a lot of time on ammunition. We 
came up with extra ammunition for the Marine Corps and Army. The 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and I want to see more ammunition 
for the Marine Corps and Army, but we will get that in the next 
session.
  We armed the bombers. We thought it was important in this enormous 
investment in long-range strike capability to put the precision-guided 
munitions that served us so well in Desert Storm on those bombers. We 
did that.
  We continued through with our reform of the submarine program to 
widen that qualitative edge that we have over other nations of the 
world. We did a lot of things to give the right kind of equipment to 
the men and women who wear America's uniforms.
  The gentleman from South Carolina, Floyd Spence, did a wonderful job 
putting this package together. There were some things we would rather 
have seen on the House side, some things that dropped out, but it was a 
compromise between the Senate and the House. We are going to work those 
other issues next year. I would urge a yes vote on this package.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I will add to what my colleague, the 
gentleman from California, said. This has been a great conference in a 
bipartisan way, for which I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], and the ranking member, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dellums]. They did a wonderful job on a very 
complicated thing.
  Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I am extremely concerned about section 1616 of 
the conference report. I am putting down my marker now, and the 
committee's marker, I think. This section would initiate a pilot 
program at unspecified DOD facilities, privatized-in-place by BRAC 
1995. It places no limit on how many pilot programs there will be.
  It allows Federal employees who work for the contractor to continue 
to accrue credit for years of Federal service in order to determine 
civil service retirement eligibility. I repeat again, working for the 
private contractor this would happen.
  Although the conference report specifies that these calculations will 
not be used to determine the amount of their retirement, I worry about 
what this

[[Page H9817]]

may cost in the years to come. I know why this happened. It was not 
because of the House, the representatives. It was not our bill, and to 
a degree we were almost forced to accept this provision.
  Although everyone assumes it applies to Louisville, which was the 
Naval Surface Warfare Center, my concern is that it will be a very 
costly provision that will not stop with Louisville or Indianapolis. 
GAO says this pilot program could cost over $511 million, which is over 
a half a billion dollars, in 11 years. That is with only several 
hundred employees.
  What will happen when Texas and California want the same thing for 
employees at Kelly and McClellan? How can we say no? What will it cost 
when we include tens of thousands of employees? I see nothing in the 
legislation to limit this to Louisville. The way I see it, it would 
apply to every facility privatized in BRAC 1995.
  The whole point of BRAC was to reduce excess infrastructure and 
overhead by privatizing in place and establishing portable benefits. We 
do precisely the opposite. We sustain excess infrastructure and keep 
the overhead. I am really disappointed that the Department of Defense 
did not take exception to this. Where are the savings? We would make a 
far greater contribution to national security by maintaining the status 
quo, protecting our Federal employees, and calling off wholesale 
privatization. By allowing the so-called pilot program to go forward, 
we ensure we will never attain the savings we were supposed to get from 
BRAC.

                              {time}  2145

  All of us worry about underfunded modernization in O&M accounts. But 
the conference report states, ``The military department concerns shall 
be liable for the portion of any estimated increase in unfunded 
liability of civil service retirement.''
  We do not know where this is going. We do not know where it will 
stop, and we do not know what it will cost.
  The conference report includes the GAO study. But directing GAO to do 
a study after the fact will not be enough to put the brakes on this 
policy. Once it gets going, the cost will not matter. Politically, it 
will be impossible to go back.
  My other worry is that this is a backdoor way to push privatization 
by making it more palatable to Federal workers. I can safely say that I 
stand second to none in my concern about Federal employees, but this is 
a divide-and-conquer strategy if there ever was one.
  In closing, the most unfortunate thing is that this bill is so good, 
has many other constructive features, and does so many other things we 
need to do for our military. I will support the conference report.
  But section 1616 plants a seed that would threaten to overwhelm our 
ability to pay for national security in the years ahead. I ask Members 
to support the conference report, but be aware, section 1616 could 
create a long-term problem that could come back to haunt us in years to 
come.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Jacksonville, FL [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the fiscal 1997 
Defense authorization conference report.
  This bill builds on the actions this House strongly endorsed last 
year: Improving the quality of life or our military personnel and their 
dependents; enhancing the readiness of our military forces; ensuring 
that our combat equipment is appropriately modernized; and providing 
for additional structural reform at the Pentagon.
  The bill provides $10.8 billion more than the President requested for 
fiscal 1997. However, this is not even enough to keep pace with 
inflation. Given the many threats to America's interests overseas and 
the number of operations other than war to which this administration 
has committed our forces, the funding levels in this bill are not only 
appropriate, but necessary.
  I am especially pleased that H.R. 3230 keeps faith with our military 
personnel and families, in July I visited Bosnia, where our troops are 
doing an outstanding job under trying conditions. Like so many military 
members today, though, they are being called upon to leave their 
families behind more frequently, and for longer periods, than ever 
before. This bill increases military pay and other benefits and 
provides additional funds for family housing--improvements that are 
sorely needed if we hope to retain our best people over the long term.
  I also want to note my appreciation that the conference chose to 
retain current law regarding depot maintenance and repair issues. I 
hope the Pentagon will take heed of this action and conclude at last 
that it ought not proceed with ill-conceived plans to privatize closing 
installations. The base closure process was designed to eliminate 
excess capacity. Efforts to evade this requirement for political gain 
are incompatible with National Security interests.
  Finally, I want t thank our very able chairman, Floyd Spence, his 
leadership in securing an excellent bill. I also want to thank the 
committee staff for the very hard work and dedication they contribute 
to this process.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues' support for this conference 
report.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ortiz].
  (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report 
and would like to particularly lend my strong support and endorsement 
of the military construction title of the bill. I greatly appreciate 
the leadership of both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers for 
their commitment to compiling what I believe to be a truly bipartisan 
legislative package to address our Nation's military construction 
backlog.
  The military construction portion of the bill places a very strong 
emphasis on quality of life initiatives and addresses our military's 
need for modernization. I am extremely pleased that we have been 
successful in protecting the priorities of the House by allocating the 
quality of life programs the bulk of additional funds which have been 
made available for military construction this year.
  I think that it is important to point out to my good friends and 
colleagues that during the entire deliberation process, we were careful 
to fund those projects that were identified by the military services as 
a top priority.
  Furthermore, this conference report continues our commitment to 
stretching housing dollars and increases the funds available for 
public-private partnership initiatives.
  I think that this portion of the Defense authorization bill makes a 
strong statement of this Congress' bipartisan concern for our military 
and commitment to maintaining readiness and modernization.
  The conference report is certainly not perfect, but on balance I 
believe that this is a good bill that emphasizes readiness and quality 
of life projects, and I congratulate the gentleman from Colorado, 
Chairman Hefley, the gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman Spence, 
and the gentleman from California, Mr. Ron Dellums, our ranking 
minority member, for a job well done. I encourage my friends and 
colleagues to vote for this conference report.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Thornberry].
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight one part of this 
bill that deals with nuclear weapons. As far as the eye can see, our 
country will continue to rely on nuclear weapons for our security, and 
yet we face some very daunting challenges.
  Our weapons and facilities are getting older, and we have decided not 
to engage in nuclear testing. We are going to have to have first-rate 
facilities, first-rate people and an efficient management structure to 
get through this time. This bill advances all three.
  It is particularly important that we have clear lines of authority 
and clear lines of responsibility between each facility in the nuclear 
weapons complex and the headquarters in Washington without a lot of 
mid-level management getting in the way. There have been a number of 
outside organizations and internal reviews that have called for exactly 
this kind of reform, and yet this bill is the first time that it has 
actually taken place.
  Each facility will report directly to Washington and will be a part 
of a

[[Page H9818]]

management council. This is a safety issue for the country, it is a 
good and efficient Government issue, and it is also a preparedness 
issue, and it is just one of the many ways that this bill helps make 
the country safer.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Pickett].
  (Mr. PICKETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in strong support of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, the military personnel title provisions in the 
conference report to H.R. 3230 solidly support quality of life and 
readiness efforts. These provisions reflect Congress' continued support 
of our military service members through significant enhancements in 
these areas.
  The bill includes a 3-percent military pay raise, as proposed in the 
President's budget, as well as a 4.6-percent increase in the basic 
allowance for quarters that will reduce out-of-pocket housing costs to 
service members by 1 full percent. To ensure our junior military 
members can afford safe and adequate housing in high-cost areas, a 
minimum variable housing allowance is provided, as well as other 
reimbursements so that military members are not forced to use their 
personal savings to offset the cost of a Government-directed move.
  This conference report is another step toward providing active duty 
and retired service members and their families with accessible and 
quality health care. For example, it restores $475 million to the 
Defense Health program, a shortfall that, if not remedied, would have 
had serious adverse consequences for active-duty family members and 
retirees who have a difficult enough time already trying to obtain 
medical care in military facilities.
  Additionally, it takes a significant step forward with regard to the 
issue of Medicare subvention by directing the Secretary of Defense and 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit a plan for testing 
Medicare subvention to Congress and the President by September 6, 1996. 
The plan would establish a demonstration program enabling the 
Department of Health and Human Services to reimburse the Department of 
Defense for care provided to Medicare-eligible military retirees.
  Other key initiatives of the military personnel provisions of the 
conference report to H.R. 3230 include: adding $20 million to the New 
Parent Support program to help new military families and parents deal 
with new stresses associated with the high military operating tempo. 
Challenging hate group activity in the armed services by directing the 
services to conduct human relations training designed to promote a 
sensitivity to hate group activity. Adding nearly $50 million more than 
the President's budget for the Army military personnel account to 
minimize the readiness impact of continued shortfalls in that account.
  In addition to the personnel titles, the conference report to H.R. 
3230, taken as a whole, represents a strong balance between people, 
readiness, and modernization. It will result in the continuation of a 
ready, able, and quality military force. I urge my colleagues to 
support the conference report.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. Let me 
say to my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Sonny Montgomery, 
we will miss you and may God bless you.
  I commend the chairman and the ranking member for working in a true 
spirit of cooperation throughout the process leading up to this bill, 
being passed in committee and through its conference.
  I would also commend the work done by the bipartisan depot caucus 
which focused on the very difficult issue of defining the work to be 
done at the various service departs. The members of this caucus and the 
respective staff worked tireless hours and achieved a result that will 
be very beneficial to the men and women serving in our armed services.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, among other things, provides for a pay raise 
for the members of each branch of our military and also provides a 
significant benefit for members of the dental profession serving in the 
military, benefits like this will allow our armed services to continue 
to compete with the private sector for the very finest young men and 
women our country has to offer.
  This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].
  (Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in 
support of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. 
This is a strong and substantive bill that bolsters and fortifies our 
national defense and greatly improves the quality of life for our 
Nation's servicemen and women. It also puts more money in veterans 
programs.
  I want to especially congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spence] who so ably crafted this legislation. Thanks to the 
chairman's leadership, we have the opportunity to vote for a very 
significant and strong bill today, or this evening. I also want to 
thank the gentleman from California, [Mr. Dellums], who in victory or 
defeat is always the consummate professional.
  I am delighted with the quality of life improvements this bill makes. 
We must never forget the sacrifices that our service personnel make in 
our behalf, even in peacetime. I am especially pleased to see we are 
increasing impact aid by $35 million over the President's request for 
zero funding.
  This bill strengthens America's state of readiness in a still 
dangerous world. I stand in favor of H.R. 3230, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote in support of this very important legislation.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked an was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] for so many years of courtesy and 
professionalism. It is an honor to serve on the committee with him, and 
also say to everyone how much I will miss the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Defense authorization 
conference report which, though hardly perfect, moves us in the right 
direction.
  This House has made some tough votes in recent days--particularly on 
welfare reform. As the Wall Street Journal said yesterday, we are 
ending welfare as we know it and creating welfare as we don't know it.
  That is true of our national security as well. The cold war threat we 
knew has ended and a world we don't know has begun.
  This bill, nonetheless, takes some important steps. First, the bill 
makes critical investments in key weapons and technology programs that 
our Nation will need in order to meet the expected war-fighting 
requirements of the next century. The dangers posed by a new range of 
regional threats and technologies are growing.
  As we reduce forward-basing, we need weapons with which we can 
project force quickly and decisively--weapons which can deter 
aggression before we are required to deploy personnel and equipment. 
This bill includes funds for such weapons, like the B-1 and B-2 
upgrades, the F/A-18 and the C-17. It also includes research funds for 
a robust national and theater ballistic missile defense system as well 
as technologies aimed at counter-proliferation and antiterrorism.
  Many of these investments will, in the long term, also save money by 
reducing the ever increasing operation and maintenance costs of weapons 
systems that have been in use well past their designed life span.
  Second, the bill includes an initiative which I helped author to re-
organize the function and fund the development of cost-shared dual use 
technology--thus protecting our industrial base and reducing costs by 
developing products, technology, and processes that meet both defense 
and commercial needs.
  As my colleagues know, we can not afford maintaining an industrial 
base that only meets unique military requirements. We need to diversify 
that

[[Page H9819]]

base and not only apply defense technologies to commercial use but, 
more importantly, use commercial technologies and products to meet 
defense needs. The dual-use technology provision in the bill will help 
achieve this important goal.
  There are also missed opportunities. I strongly supported changing 
the 60-40 rule relating to military depots, in order to permit more 
private sector work at competitive rates. That opportunity was lost 
and, as a result, we are burdened for another year by costs that could 
have been directed to more critical needs, whether military, domestic, 
or deficit reduction. Another opportunity will present itself next year 
and I hope my colleagues will seize it.
  We also need to aggressively reduce administrative overhead at the 
Pentagon. This bill takes some steps in that direction, but last year's 
mandate that the defense workforce be reduced has not been implemented. 
The bill before us again directs the department to implement these 
cuts. The bill also begins the process of streamlining, consolidating, 
and downsizing the inefficient headquarters organizations of the 
military departments.
  We must do more to cut costs. We must privatize more non-core defense 
activities, accelerate procurement reforms, and rely on more dual use 
technologies, products, and processes.
  But cutting is not enough: rethinking our roles and missions for the 
digital battlefield of the 21st century is imperative. I anticipate 
that we will reduce forward positioning and manpower requirements while 
making increased investments in intelligence gathering, deep strike 
capability, and new systems and technologies that increase lethality, 
reduce response time, and protect and enhance the survivability of our 
forces.
  But we need to review and reassess our defense assumptions in a place 
and time when partisanship and election sound-bites are absent. 
Hopefully, that work can begin soon after the election is over.
  I urge support for this conference report. It is not perfect, but it 
makes an important contribution to the difficult national security 
choices we face in the years ahead.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine 
[Mr. Longley].
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to salute both the chairman as well 
as the ranking member for their leadership during the past year. It has 
been superb. They have really set a standard.
  I think that there is a lot that we can be proud of in this bill. I 
am certainly glad to see the retention of the depot language for the 
60/40 split, but I am also proud that we have finally introduced the 
concept of multiyear procurement. We have expanded the concept from the 
C-17 program, which is going to see a procurement of 80 aircraft over 
the next 7 years, but we are also not cutting the budget, we are not 
increasing it, we are maintaining stable funding. A good part of that 
stable funding is being used to add to a multiyear procurement plan for 
Aegis destroyers, the result of which is going to be that over the next 
5 years, if the plan is fulfilled, we will produce one more destroyer 
at $1 billion less in cost, or, if you will, 15 destroyers over 5 years 
for $1 billion less than it would cost us to buy 14 through normal 
procurement methods.
  Again with the threats we face in the world, now is not the time to 
cut defense but at the same time through more efficient management we 
can stabilize the funding and get more value for our dollars.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker I have a list:
  Head Start; antiterrorism efforts at airports and elsewhere; NIH 
research; cops on the street; drug treatment programs; cleaning up 
hazardous waste sites; housing for the elderly; aid to college 
students, Pell grants, student loans; the Community Development Block 
Grant Program; child care; and earned income tax credit.
  If we funded the Defense Department at what it asked, we could give 
each of these programs an additional $1 billion. Every one of these 
programs is $1 billion poorer because we decided to play Santa Claus to 
the Defense Department. We did not end welfare. We just transferred it. 
We transferred it to Western Europe and Japan. Our European allies 
spend an average of 2 percent of their gross domestic product on the 
military. We spend 4 percent. It is in this $11 billion gift we gave.
  The greatest gift any nation ever gave to another is the free 
military defense we provide to Japan so it can keep its military 
spending at such a minuscule level. Every Member here who votes for 
this bill who has ever told someone, ``Gee, I would like to have given 
you more for child care in the welfare bill. I couldn't afford it.'' 
Or, ``Gee, I wish we could have cleaned up that hazardous waste site. 
We couldn't afford it.''
  ``Yes, Project Head Start is a good program, I wish we could do 
more.''
  ``Oh, I'm sorry you didn't get your cops on the street application. 
If we could only have increased it, you would have gotten more.''
  ``And elderly housing, boy, of course we could use more elderly 
housing.''
  Would you also tell them that you spent it here? Do not tell them 
that you wanted to do that if you vote for this bill without telling 
them that you took $11 billion more than the Pentagon asked, which goes 
to help defend Western Europe against I do not know what, which goes to 
defend Japan against people they want to trade with, that is where this 
money went.

                              {time}  2200

  So the next time we tell people we are sorry NIH was not bigger, we 
are sorry we did not do more on the earned income tax credit or child 
care or Cops on the Street, please also tell them that we gave $11 
billion more to the Pentagon than they wanted. Please also tell them 
that programs like the Community Development Block Grant could have got 
another $1 billion, one-eleventh of that, and that would have been 25 
percent of what they got.
  If we have cut anything else, please give them the full picture about 
the $11 billion giveaway to Western Europe and East Asia.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
  (Mr. SKEEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of final passage of the 1997 national 
defense authorization bill because it is a step in the continuation of 
a national defense with which New Mexico plays a vital role.
  Specifically, this bill is very important for remediation of our 
Nation's nuclear waste problem. The WIPP land withdrawal amendment 
contained in this bill is a long overdue piece of legislation which 
will cut through the bureaucratic red tape that has kept this vitally 
important project from opening. WIPP has been proven safe in every 
conceivable scientific fashion and is the beginning of the end of our 
Nation's nuclear waste problem.
  We have worked long and hard to draft a piece of legislation which 
will address both the environmental and disposal concerns and this is 
it. Both the DOE and the EPA support this legislation.
  It is time to quit wasting taxpayer dollars and time to permanently 
dispose of waste that is currently stored in aboveground containers on 
asphalt pads, and it is time to quit talking about what we cannot do 
and start going about what we can do.
  We have complete confidence in the ability of DOE, EPA, and the State 
of New Mexico to open WIPP in a safe and timely manner.
  I want to particularly thank the people of Carlsbad for their 
tireless work to make this project happen, and also a special thanks to 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] for his support, and 
also to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] for all the hard 
work and diligence, and to the chairman and his committee for 
presenting this thing and finally bringing this Gordian knot to the 
present, for slicing it open and getting on with the business of 
storing nuclear waste.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, until 
such time as the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] reaches his 
last speaker.

[[Page H9820]]


  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
  (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like specifically to address section 334 of the 
defense authorization conference report, which my good friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Dingell] referred to earlier during the 
debate on the rule. This section amends the Superfund program with 
respect to the transfer to Federal facilities before contamination is 
remediated.
  The general idea of section 334 is laudable: To assimilate polluted 
properties back into the community. However, without an ironclad 
assurance that States can enforce the ultimate cleanup of these sites, 
the good idea quickly becomes a curse to communities.
  Attorneys General from Colorado, California, Texas, Washington, 
Minnesota, and New Mexico, to name a few, have warned about the 
possible implications of section 334. They are concerned that any 
cleanup assurances made by the Federal Government will be hollow and 
unenforceable.
  Superfund does not contain an adequate waiver of sovereign immunity. 
Federal entities will initiate transfers and disappear and the 
liability will go back to private entities, and we cannot have this. I 
will introduce legislation next year to correct this.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
conference report and applaud the chairman and the ranking member for 
their leadership. The disagreements were of a substantive nature and 
not partisan.
  The reason I support increasing the budget over what President 
Clinton asked for is because the need is very real. This report 
increases funding for the F-18 CD program, it increases funding for R&D 
on the next generation of Patriot missiles, and, importantly, it 
increases funding for the quality of life for our men and women in 
uniform.
  People ask why do we need to increase funding over what President 
Clinton has asked for? Very simply, President Clinton has decided to 
send troops to Haiti and he has decided to send troops to Bosnia, and 
he has put them on heightened alert elsewhere around the world. Even 
though I did not support all of those actions, and perhaps others in 
the Chamber did not as well, it is imperative that we all support our 
troops with the training and equipment they need to complete their 
mission and to return them home safely.
  That is why we have to add more money than President Clinton asked 
for. The Pentagon does not set its own budget request. This is what 
President Clinton asked for. We are adding more money to that.
  Just as President Clinton signed the budget last year, I think he 
will sign the defense budget this year. We need it to support our 
troops. I urge every Member to support this report.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
even though I have the right to close, I will yield back the balance of 
my time and let the gentleman close out.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to point out to my 
colleagues that this is the last conference report for five of the 
distinguished members of this committee, and all five of these Members 
happen to be Members on the Democratic side of the aisle.
  I would like to refer to them in order of their seniority, the 
gentleman from Mississippi, Sonny Montgomery; the gentlewoman from 
Colorado, Pat Schroeder; the gentleman from Alabama, Glen Browder; the 
gentleman from Texas, Pete Geren; and the gentleman from Florida, Pete 
Peterson, and simply say to them that they will be missed, thank them 
very much for the dignity of their service to this country and to this 
Congress and wish them well in the next phase that they enter into in 
life's process.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, if Members will recall, last year we complained 
about the process, arguing that there was a lack of participation on 
the part of the minority members of this committee in the process. I 
would rise tonight to say that there was a quantum step forward and 
improvement in that area.
  My colleagues did participate in the process, and though it was 
truncated, dictated by a very ambitious schedule, to the extent 
possible, I feel comfortable in saying, without fear of contradiction, 
that my colleagues participated in that process.
  Third, I would like to say something that is not often spoken on the 
floor of this House, and that is that I believe very strongly that no 
Member of Congress could function adequately and capably without 
competent, capable and dedicated staff people.
  It is not often known that many of these staff people work night and 
day, all night, over weekends to get this job done. When we leave here, 
after we have made agreements, someone has to sit down and reconcile 
the hundreds of pages, thousands of paragraphs, millions of words and 
billions of dollars. It is all done at the staff level. So I would like 
to take the opportunity to thank all of the staff members for 
their significant dedication and contribution to this process.

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, on a substantive note, I note most of my 
colleagues here, with the exception of the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts, [Mr. Frank] and myself, rose in support of this 
conference report. I rose in opposition to the report. That is not to 
say that I do not believe that there are some significant, important 
and constructive items in this bill and policy in this bill. But as we 
step back and look at the totality of it, I believe that this bill is 
going in the wrong direction.
  When we find ourselves having communicated to millions of American 
people that virtually every segment of American society has had to make 
some sacrifice as we go about the business of ``balancing the budget'', 
where we have even included poor people and children and powerless 
people who have had to contribute to that process, whether it is in the 
form of welfare reform, reductions in education, reductions in 
environmental restoration funds or whatever, we find ourselves with a 
conference report here today that does not reduce but rather increases 
by $11.3 billion money above and beyond what was requested by this 
administration in the context of a post-cold-war era.
  I think that is a stark statement. I think it needs to be laid 
clearly and profoundly before this body in this auspicious moment when 
we find ourselves whacking away at programs designed to enhance the 
quality of life of millions of American people in this country.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] said it eloquently and 
articulately, and I would not attempt to compete with that, but simply 
to remind my colleagues that this bill is $11.3 billion above the 
President's request and $1.3 billion above the appropriation request. 
At this time I see no rational reason why we should be increasing our 
military budget at this particular level in the context of the post-
cold-war world.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
report and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  I oppose this conference report for many reasons, including the fact 
that it appropriates over $11 billion more for defense programs than 
the Pentagon requested. But one of the main reasons why I oppose this 
conference report is that it fails to protect the rights and health of 
American servicewomen serving overseas. As you all know, the House 
version of the bill contained a ban on military women purchasing 
abortion services on military bases overseas with their own funds. This 
provision remained in the bill despite bipartisan efforts to remove it. 
The Senate rejected this provision outright.
  This ban penalizes women who have volunteered to serve their country 
by prohibiting them from exercising their constitutionally protected 
right to choose. It also puts the health of our military women at risk 
by forcing those stationed in countries where there is no safe and 
legal abortion available to seek an abortion at local facilities or to 
travel to acquire safe abortion services.
  It is unimaginable to me and to the American people that we would 
reward American servicewomen who have volunteered to serve this Nation 
by burdening them this way. I urge you to vote against this report.

[[Page H9821]]


  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
for H.R. 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation 
addresses several basic needs for our military including a 3 percent 
pay raise for military personnel and a cost of living adjustment and 
improved access to health care for military retirees. The bill also 
supports modernization initiatives and will improve the overall 
readiness of our Armed Forces. These points are increasingly 
significant as the threat of terrorism continues to rise.
  We must not forget that the men and women of our military face this 
threat every day, and it is our responsibility to ensure that our 
troops are trained and equipped accordingly. I realize that some 
individual Members may have reservations about this conference report, 
but I would respond by asking that we take a moment to think about the 
men and women who have volunteered for the difficult task of defending 
our Nation. They deserve our support today. I urge a yes vote.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, here are six reasons to vote against the 
fiscal year 1997 DOD authorization conference report:
  First, the measure provides: $11.3 billion more than the Pentagon 
requested overall, $7 billion more than requested for procurement, $3.8 
billion more than requested for BMD, $508 million more than requested 
for NMD, $234 million more than requested for C-17 transport planes, 
$281 million more than requested for tactical aircraft, $203 million 
more than requested for helicopters, and $701 million more than 
requested for submarines.
  Second, overseas abortions are not permitted under the conference 
report. The Senate receded to the Dornan position.
  Third, the conference report does not include Dornan provisions on 
HIV positive servicemembers and gays in the military.
  Fourth, the conference report retains the Bartlett ban on selling 
pornography at the PX.
  Fifth, the conference accepted Carol Moseley-Braun's amendment to 
prevent servicemembers from rolling their military retirement into 
their civil service retirement to avoid payment to former spouses with 
the provision that it is not retroactive, and that no one can sue a 
servicemember for taking advantage of the loophole.
  Sixth, the report provides $15.95 million for nonlethal weapons and 
technology development and an additional $5 million for the services to 
procure nonlethal weapons.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3230, 
the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization conference report.
  While I am concerned that this bill provides more money than the 
Pentagon has requested, this legislation addresses many of the 
important needs expressed by the Department of Defense and the Joint 
Chiefs.
  I disagree, however, with the Republican leadership that the current 
defense posture of this administration is weakening our core defense 
capabilities. One only needs to look to the Republican budget 
resolution passed in the spring to see that their out year projections 
for defense spending are roughly that of the administration. In fact, I 
would simply like to point out that the Democratic alternative, 
otherwise known as the coalition budget, keeps defense spending on a 
path that sustains U.S. national security throughout the next century. 
I am concerned that the current rationalization for spending more than 
the Pentagon has requested in fiscal year 1997 will lead to 
unsustainable defense budgets in the years 2001 and 2002.
  Nevertheless, I support this bill because the alternative is to not 
have an authorization bill. We have been down that road before. Last 
year the Defense appropriations bill, which is normally supposed to 
follow the authorization bill, was passed first and the fiscal year 
1996 DOD authorization bill was not passed until this past spring.
  I support this bill because it eliminates most of the contentious and 
unwarranted provisions that were contained in the House-passed bill and 
the bill that was vetoed last year by the President. Because these 
provisions were eliminated, we are able to move this bill in a more 
expeditious and bipartisan manner than last year's authorization bill.
  I am pleased that the conferees eliminated the onerous provisions 
that would discharge HIV-positive service personnel and the earlier 
House provision that would have rescinded the ``don't ask, don't tell'' 
policy governing gays in the military.
  I am also happy that the leadership did away with language that would 
have mandated early deployment of space based sensors or ``star wars'' 
as a central component of U.S. missile defense policy, thus violating 
the ABM treaty and endangering Russia's ratification of START II.
  Additionally, this bill provides for a 3-percent pay raise for 
military personnel, equal to the President's request, and establishes 
January 1, 1998 as the fiscal year 1998 military retiree cost of living 
adjustment [COLA] date. Both of these important provisions maintain 
Congress' commitment to those who serve and those who have served our 
military. This bill also directs the Secretary of Defense and Secretary 
of Health and Human Services to submit a plan to Congress and the 
President outlining the details of a Medicare subvention demonstration 
program.

  While I am generally pleased with the end product of this bill, I am 
deeply concerned that this bill fails to address the issue of depot 
maintenance and the so-called 60-40 rule. Ironically enough, it was the 
House last year that boldly called for the repeal of the so-called 60-
40 rule in order to give DOD greater flexibility in outsourcing non-
CORE workload to the private sector.
  I understand that many of my colleagues are concerned that the 
Pentagon will engage in wholesale privatization of the Pentagon's 
defense industrial base and maintenance activities. That simply is not 
the case and flies in the face of the evidence. The elimination or 
modification of the 60-40 rule would have moved away from the arbitrary 
standard currently used for depot workload allocation to a more 
rational approach that will better serve the long term national 
interest. The Pentagon's report made clear that public depots have and 
will continue to play a major role in the important maintenance 
capabilities of the military.
  Greater reliance on the private sector for appropriate types of depot 
maintenance, and determining where it makes sense, will enhance faster 
infusion of new technologies into existing DOD weapons platforms. 
Testimony offered by the service Chiefs this year supported removal of 
legal constraints on DOD's ability to efficiently manage its system 
support resources, including the arbitrary 60-40 rule and the three 
million dollars threshold. If this Congress is serious about saving 
money, privatizing government functions other than the House mail room 
ought to be given serious consideration and not empty rhetoric. To that 
end, I am hopeful that we will be able to address this important issue 
next year and come to some sort of compromise that all members can 
agree to.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect, but it addresses many 
important issues that confront the military today.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, although I intend to support the 
conference report for H.R. 3230, I do have concerns about several 
aspects of the bill.
  Congress included H.R. 945, the Missing Service Personnel Act, in the 
FY96 Department of Defense Authorization Act. As a cosponsor of H.R. 
945, I was pleased that this important legislation was finally enacted 
into law.
  The Missing Service Personnel Act, as contained in Section 569 of 
P.L. 104-106, consists of a number of critical provisions that provide 
due process for the families of missing service members who are 
desperately seeking honest information about the fate of their loved 
ones. The conference report revokes key provisions contained in this 
law. As a result of the these changes:
  Civilian Defense Department employees stationed in hostile fire zones 
will no longer be covered by the Missing Service Personnel Act, meaning 
that DOD will not be required to account for civilian employees who 
might be captured by enemy forces or who disappear during combat.
  Unit commanders will be permitted to wait 10 days--rather than 48 
hours, as required by current law--before reporting that a service 
person is missing or unaccounted for.
  Criminal penalties for someone who knowingly and willfully withholds 
information about the disappearance, whereabouts or status of a missing 
person will be repealed.
  Missing service persons can be declared dead without credible proof. 
If a body is recovered and is not identifiable by visual means, 
forensic certification will no longer be required.
  In addition, current law provides for automatic review every three 
years after an initial report of disappearance. The enactment of H.R. 
3230 will repeal this requirement and provide that cases will be 
reviewed only when information is received.
  We have a responsibility to determine to the fullest extent possible 
the fate of our missing personnel and to share that information with 
next of kin. What kind of message are we sending to the brave men and 
women in the Armed Forces if we repeal the Missing Service Personnel 
Act? A service member deserves to know that we will do everything in 
our power to account for their whereabouts if he or she is reported 
missing.
  The POW/MIA issue is one in which I have been involved during my 
entire Congressional career. As a member of the House Veterans' Affairs 
Committee and as an Air Force veteran, I made a vow to myself long ago 
never to give up the search. I am disappointed that H.R. 3230 repeals 
the Missing Service Personnel Act which was only enacted into law 
earlier this year.
  I am also disappointed that conferees did not include provisions from 
the Senate bill, S. 1745, which would have benefited certain widows of 
military retirees.

[[Page H9822]]

  As my colleagues may know, several legislative changes have been 
enacted over the years to allow regular and reserve retired members to 
ensure that their survivors will continue to receive a percentage of 
their retired pay upon their death. However, these changes have created 
two categories of forgotten widows by omitting any benefits for 
survivors of members who died before they could participate in the new 
Survivor Benefit Plan.
  The Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), enacted in 1972, replaced an earlier 
unsuccessful program. DOD offered an 18-month open enrollment period 
for members already retired. This SBP open enrollment period 
inadvertently created the first category of forgotten widows--widows of 
retirees who died before the SBP was enacted or during the open 
enrollment period before making a participation decision.
  In 1978, the law was changed to allow Reservists the opportunity to 
elect survivor benefit coverage for their spouses and children when 
completing 20 years of qualifying service. However, it did not provide 
coverage for widows of Reserve retirees who died prior to its 
enactment. Thus, the second category of forgotten widows evolved--the 
pre-1978 reserve widows.
  Additionally, in 1948, when the Civil Service Survivor Benefit Plan 
was enacted, it also created some civil service forgotten widows. This 
was resolved 10 years later in 1958 by authorization of an annuity of 
up to $750 per year for the widow of a civil service employee who was 
married to the employee for at least five years immediately before the 
retiree's death, had not remarried and was not entitled to any other 
annuity based on the deceased employee's service.
  As a group, forgotten widows are older women 60 to 90 years of age 
whose husbands retired with 20 to 40 years of service to our country. 
Despite all of the efforts to bring in other groups of survivors into 
the SBP, widows, whose husbands died in retirement prior to 1972, have 
remained forgotten.
  Today, all military forgotten widows have to show for their husbands' 
career service is memories, while the 1958 $750 civil service benefits 
equates to more than $3,600 in 1994 dollars. The military forgotten 
widows deserve at least the minimum SBP annuity allowed under current 
law.
  Section 634 of the Senate Defense Authorization Act addressed this 
important issue and would have provided forgotten widows with a monthly 
annuity of $165 per month. This provision of S. 1745 was similar to a 
bill which I introduced. My bill, H.R. 1090, has received bipartisan 
support and has over 40 cosponsors.
  I was hopeful that the conferees would retain the language from the 
Senate bill in the final conference report for H.R. 3230. 
Unfortunately, it was excluded for budgetary reasons.
  I will continue to work on this important issue in the 105th 
Congress. Military service does not take place in a vacuum and I hope 
that we will provide these elderly widows with the help they deserve.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
report.
  I oppose this conference report for many reasons, including the fact 
that it appropriates over $11 billion more for Defense programs than 
the Pentagon requested. But one of the main reasons why I oppose this 
conference report is that it fails to protect the rights and health of 
American servicewomen serving overseas. As you all know, the House 
version of the bill contained a ban on military women purchasing 
abortion services on military bases overseas with their own funds. This 
provision remained in the bill despite bi-partisan efforts to remove 
it. The Senate rejected this provision outright.
  This ban should have been removed at conference. Removing it would 
not obligate any State funds. It would merely allow military women and 
dependents to use their own money to pay for abortion services at 
military bases, just as they would use their own funds to pay for those 
services if they were in the United States.
  The ban contained in the conference report penalizes women who have 
volunteered to serve their country by prohibiting them from exercising 
their constitutionally protected right to choose. The irony that this 
Congress will limit the constitutional rights of the very women who 
have sacrificed so much to protect our Constitution should not be lost 
on any of us.
  This ban also puts the health of our military women at risk. Many of 
these women are stationed in countries where there is no access to safe 
and legal abortions outside of the military hospitals. A woman forced 
to seek an abortion at local facilities, or forced to wait to travel to 
acquire safe abortion services, faces tremendous health risks.
  It is unimaginable to me and to the American people that we would 
reward American servicewomen who have volunteered to serve this nation 
by burdening them this way. I urge you to vote against this report. 
Thank you.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support providing our troops 
the basic equipment they rely on in the field. Adequate military 
housing and medical facilities are also wise uses of our scarce 
resources. In providing for the defense of our Nation, there is no 
substitute for having well-trained, well-equipped military personnel.
  Besides providing for the needs of our troops, the bill before us 
today includes funding for exotic weapons systems and missile programs. 
Much of the high-tech gadgetry included in this bill was neither 
requested, nor is needed by the Department of Defense.
  While I will continue to vote to improve the lives of those serving 
in our armed forces, I cannot support this bill. The real military 
needs of our country, as well as pressing domestic concerns prevent me 
from doing so.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report to H.R. 3230, the fiscal year 1997 National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  I do so because it provides the support for our troops and their 
families that this administration did not when they submitted their 
budget request earlier this year.
  Yet, this bill still represents a decrease from 1996 when you take 
inflation into account.
  Why do we need to pass a bill that keeps defense at level spending 
rather than cut almost $11 billion as the President originally 
proposed?
  Because it provides the funds to stem the continued deteriation in 
family housing, military health care, and our procurement programs.
  This bill adds much needed funding for new barracks and improvements 
to family housing units that will benefit approximately 3,000 families.
  This bill restores $475 million to health care for our military and 
their families, a shortfall that was glaring in the President's 
original request.
  This bill funds the 3 percent military pay raise and a 4.6 percent 
increase in housing allowances for our military.
  And, we funded O&M and other readiness accounts to stop the 
reductions in our military forces below the levels required by the 
administration for all of its overseas deployments.
  This bill trys to slow down the continued decline in procurement 
which has suffered a 70 percent decline since 1985.
  Most importantly, this bill maintains the commitment we made last in 
this Republican Congress' first defense bills to actually deploy 
effective missile defenses by 2003 or earlier.
  It is this Congress that has added over $900 million for theatre and 
national missile defense programs to keep us on track to deployment, 
not simply continue research as the President recommends.
  It is this bill and the appropriations bills that have added $246 
million for the Navy Upper Tier program, the most promising and near 
term theatre missile defense program.
  The Administration's budget request simply kept the Navy Upper 
program as technology development program with no certain date for 
deployment.
  On the policy side this bill did drop bill language, because of veto 
threats, that required the administration to submit changes in the ABM 
Treaty to the Congress.
  However, Republican and Democrat conferees clearly stated in the 
manager's report that any substantive change to the ABM Treaty be done 
in accordance with the Constitution and the treaty making powers of the 
Senate.
  And, that this constitutional principle had been permanently codified 
with regard to the ABM Treaty in the 1995 Defense Authorization Bill, 
Public Law 103-337, and remains in effect.
  Most importantly, the conferees, Democrat and Republican, stated in 
their conference report that the President's National Security Advisor, 
Mr. Lake, told House and Senate Members from both parties in a meeting 
within the last 2 weeks that the tentative agreements the U.S. has 
recently announced with various Russian republics regarding theatre 
missile defenses and their demarcation constitutes a substantive change 
to the ABM Treaty.
  I refer all Members to Page H9250 of the July 30, Part II, 
Congressional Record. This page contains the conferees statement that I 
just referred to.
  The conferees statement for this bill is clearly consistent with a 
provision this House adopted and I sponsored as part of the fiscal year 
1997 Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill.
  That provision requires the President to certify that he will submit 
to the Senate for its advice and consent any amendments or changes to 
the ABM Treaty regarding the demarcation between theatre missile 
defense systems and antiballistic missile systems or any changes 
regarding the multilateralization of the ABM Treaty.
  I commend Chairman Spence and his staff for all of their hard work 
and urge support of this important conference agreement.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, last June I asked the Secretary of 
Defense to answer a few questions about growing numbers of military 
personnel on loan to Members of Congress under questionable 
circumstances. To

[[Page H9823]]

date, I have not received a reply. Now I know why. They are too 
embarrassed.
  Pentagon officials have learned that the their haphazard and 
uncontrolled lending of military personnel to Hill offices violates 
Congressional ethics rules, not to mention DoD's own regulations.
  The situation is so bad DoD has admitted it has no idea how many 
military officers are working on the Hill. The estimates range from 
dozens to more than one hundred.
  Here are a few examples. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have magnanimously 
given the Speaker of the House four military officers to help him 
analyze votes. The training, salaries, and benefits for these officers 
cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yet they are now 
doing political chores for the Speaker. Another Member of Congress has 
had an Army nurse on his staff for years.
  Some Members of Congress are actually calling the Pentagon and 
requesting specific officers by name. ``Can you send Captain Midnight 
up to my office to help out for a year?''
  Pentagon leaders believe that by detailing staff up here they can 
ingratiate themselves with Members of Congress. In other words, the 
goal is to keep Members happy and grease the wheels for Defense 
appropriations.
  Those of us who been around for more than a few years can recall the 
House Post Office scandal and the House Bank scandal.
  My colleagues who are serving their first term can now look forward 
to the House DoD Staff Scandal.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.


               motion to recommit offered by mr. dellums

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. DELLUMS. In its present form, yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Dellums moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill H.R. 3230 to the committee of conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
     insist on section 367 of the House bill (relating to impact 
     aid assistance to local educational agencies for the benefit 
     of dependents of members of the Armed Forces and civilian 
     employees of the Department of Defense).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device will be taken on agreeing 
to the conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 181, 
nays 236, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 396]

                               YEAS--181

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

                               NAYS--236

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

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Brownback
     Dickey
     Ford
     Gibbons
     Lincoln
     Manton
     McDade
     Rose
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Stark
     Studds
     Williams
     Wilson
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2229

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM and Mr. SHADEGG changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. CRAMER, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. MARTINEZ, and Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The question is on the 
conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page H9824]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 285, 
nays 132, answered not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 397]

                               YEAS--285

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     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
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     Stump
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--132

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burton
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Smith (MI)
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Brownback
     Dickey
     Ford
     Gibbons
     Johnson (CT)
     Lincoln
     Manton
     McDade
     Rose
     Schroeder
     Stark
     Studds
     Williams
     Wilson
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2237

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HANCOCK changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to. The result of the vote was 
announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 397, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________