Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)

[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.''

____________________