[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 87 (Friday, June 20, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4103-H4121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 169 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1119.

                              {time}  1144


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1119) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 
1999 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Young of Florida in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, June 
19, 1997, amendment No. 5, printed in part 1 of House Report 105-137, 
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], had been 
disposed of.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6, printed in part 1 of 
House Report 105-137.


                 Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Luther

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Luther:
       At the end of title I (page 23, before line 7), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 123. TERMINATION OF NEW PRODUCTION OF TRIDENT II (D-5) 
                   MISSILES.

       (a) Production Termination.--Funds appropriated for the 
     Department of Defense for fiscal years after fiscal year 1997 
     may not be obligated or expended to commence production of 
     additional Trident II (D-5) missiles.
       (b) Authorized Scope of Trident II (D-5) Program.--Amounts 
     appropriated for the Department of Defense may be expended 
     for the Trident II (D-5) missile program only for the 
     completion of production of those Trident II (D-5) missiles 
     which were commenced with funds appropriated for a fiscal 
     year before fiscal year 1998.
       (c) Funding Reduction.--The amount provided in section 102 
     for weapons procurement for the Navy is hereby reduced by 
     $342,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Luther] and a Member opposed, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hunter] each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther].

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I am pleased today to join with 
my fellow Minnesotan [Mr. Ramstad] in offering this bipartisan 
amendment to the fiscal year 1998 defense authorization bill to 
terminate further production of the Trident D-5 submarine launched 
ballistic missile.
  The Trident D-5 is a ballistic missile with a range of more than 
4,000 nautical miles. Each is capable of carrying up to 8 independently 
targetable nuclear warheads at speeds in excess of 13,000 miles per 
hour. The U.S. Navy currently operates a force of 17 Ohio-class fleet 
ballistic missile submarines with an eighteenth boat scheduled to join 
the force later this summer. Eight of these submarines, homeported at 
Bangor, WA, carry the older C-4 missile system. The other 9 Ohio-class 
subs and the new sub being deployed this year are homeported at Kings 
Bay, GA, and carry the new Trident D-5 missile system. Each submarine 
carries 24 missiles.
  In order to comply with the START II Treaty, the Navy is planning to 
retire four of the older subs carrying the C-4 missiles, but the Navy 
is currently planning to back-fit the other four with the new D-5 
missiles. Although the Navy has already an inventory of 350 D-5 
missiles, it nevertheless plans to procure an additional 84 Trident D-
5's through the year 2005, unless Congress intercedes.
  We believe the responsible course is for our Navy to cancel the 
proposed back-fit of the older C-4 subs and, over time, reduce its 
fleet of Ohio-class submarines to 10 vessels. With a fleet of 10

[[Page H4104]]

Ohio-class submarines carrying the new D-5 missiles, the Navy will no 
longer need the additional 84 missiles they have requested through 
fiscal year 2005. The current inventory of 350 missiles will be 
sufficient, 240 for the 10 Trident D-5 subs and 110 for testing 
purposes.
  There are very important reasons why this amendment should be 
approved by the House of Representatives. The Trident D-5 missile is a 
cold war weapon specifically designed to destroy hardened missile silos 
and other military targets found in the former Soviet Union. But today 
the nuclear threat from the former Soviet Union is dramatically 
reduced.
  While there is still an important role for strategic nuclear weapons 
in our arsenal, that role is dramatically reduced from what it was in 
the past, and weapon procurement should reflect that.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this amendment would 
save taxpayers with this act this year and with future subsequent acts 
more than $5.7 billion over 10 years, including $342 million in fiscal 
year 1998. This savings would then be available for personnel readiness 
and military training purposes or to reduce the deficit.
  Members of the House, the United States has an unchallenged world 
lead in the area of submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Only Russia, 
China, France, and Great Britain have this capability. China has just 
one submarine with 12 ballistic missiles, and the Russian fleet is 
outmoded and largely rusting away in port. A fully modernized fleet of 
10 Ohio-class subs carrying Trident D-5 missiles will continue our 
leadership in this critical area of strategic defense.
  Balancing the budget requires continuing scrutiny of every dollar the 
Government spends. We need to maintain a strong military and an 
absolutely credible nuclear deterrent force, but we must maintain that 
defense while keeping in mind the realistic threats facing our country. 
A 10 Trident submarine fleet, carrying the new D-5 missile, is enough 
to secure our interests. And saving over $5.7 billion by canceling the 
production of more D-5 missiles will make it much easier to balance the 
budget in the year 2002.
  I ask that we think about the way we think about military spending. 
Times have changed, and I hope this amendment that the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad] and I are proposing will help move us into the 
future.
  I urge my colleagues to join taxpayers for common sense in support of 
this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for both proponents of this 
amendment, but I have to tell my colleagues that this amendment is not 
grounded in common sense, for a couple of reasons. There are a lot of 
things with respect to arms control that we disagree with, 
conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, arms control 
proponents, and people who are very skeptical of the arms control 
process.
  But there are certain cornerstones of our deterrent force and our 
overall strategy of deterrents that we all agree on. When I say, ``we 
all agree on,'' I am speaking of not only of the majority in the 
Congress but also the President of the United States, whether he is a 
Democrat or Republican, and his respective military leaders in the 
Pentagon.
  I have a lot of disagreements with President Clinton on security, but 
this is not one of them. The President, and I have several letters, one 
from his CNO and one from his director of the Commander in Chief, the 
U.S. Strategic Command, President Clinton does not want to see our 
strategic force, and the most important part of our triad, which is our 
submarine force, upon which we are going to rely for 50 percent of our 
deterrent counterstrike force under START II, he does not want to see 
that force reduced, and especially to reduce it unilaterally.
  So let us review the bidding here. We have three legs of the triad. 
We have our missiles based on land. We have our bomber force. But the 
most survivable forces of our triad, our deterrent system that has 
worked for so many years, is undersea. It is difficult to target. It is 
difficult to preempt. And that deterrent force will become more and 
more important under START II if the Russians ever approve START II.
  Now here is what my colleagues should reflect upon: START II has not 
yet been approved by the Russian Duma. Our friends who are offering 
this amendment are proposing to cut back on the number of ballistic 
missile submarines, in anticipation that at some point in the future 
there will be a START III and the Russians will give us reciprocity on 
this cut and will somehow come through with cuts of their own.
  That is a very dangerous thing to do. Let us leave all the chips on 
the side of our negotiators so that, as we work down our strategic 
forces, they give a chip, we give a chip, they give a chip, we give a 
chip, and we still guard or act to detour not only the Russians but 
others who are now developing nuclear systems around the world.
  And there are others developing those systems. The Chinese, for 
example, are not a part of the START II agreements. They are developing 
nuclear systems aimed at American cities. So it is a very dangerous 
thing to try to get a jump-start on arms negotiations and start 
unilaterally to pull down our strategic forces, especially the 
underwater part of our strategic forces.
  All of our military experts, the White House leadership, the 
Pentagon, and the majority in Congress, agree the undersea part of our 
ballistic missile submarines are the most survivable part of our triad. 
And to do away with the large portion of those in anticipation of some 
future concession on the part of our negotiating partners makes no 
sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Dicks].
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I rise in opposition to the Luther amendment and in support 
of the committee's position on this.
  One of the problems here is that we have a missile on these older 
Tridents. The Pacific Tridents were built first. And the older missile, 
the C-4 missile, has a lifetime up to about 2004. Then, if we do not 
build the D-5 and replace the C-4's with the D-5's, we are going to 
have to go out and spend billions of dollars to fix up the C-4 missile.
  In fact, I have been told that that course is more expensive than 
buying the newer, more capable missiles. So why would we not want to 
retrofit? The other problem is, if we have two missiles, then we have 
to have two infrastructures for the missiles, the D-5's. And if we can 
go to an all D-5 force, than we can have one missile, one set of repair 
parts, and it is actually, in terms of ownership, less expensive.
  I would agree with my friend from California [Mr. Hunter] that until 
we see what happens in the START talks, we would, in my judgment, be 
premature to go even from 18 to 14 in terms of the number of submarines 
that we have. And the D-5 program is in place. We should buy these 
missiles now while the line is open. We need to keep this open until we 
see whether, in fact, we are going to get an arms control agreement.
  To cut it off now would be premature and we would have a situation 
where the submarines in the Atlantic have D-5's and none of the 
submarines in the Pacific would. The D-5 is a more capable missile, and 
we need to have that capability, in my judgment, in both oceans.
  So I understand the intent here to try to save some money. We all 
want to save money. But there is a lot more to this, and it goes right 
to the security of the country. The D-5 and the Trident submarine are 
the most survivable part of our triad. I think until we get these arms 
control agreements in place we should stay with this program, support 
the administration, who strongly is committed to keeping the D-5 
program going.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
my friend, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from California, Mr. 
Hunter yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, here we go again. It seems like we always go through 
this every year or so on what to do with the

[[Page H4105]]

D-5. I think the point has been made, and made very well, that as we 
finally had the cold war come to an end, the thing that did it was the 
triad system, or the system where we figured out how we were going to 
handle this problem.
  We had the aircraft, and we looked at the old B-52, which is a very, 
very old airplane, came out with the B-1 and now the B-2. We got the 
land-based missiles, and now we are going to take the MX and take it 
out of the silos and all we will have is the Minuteman III.
  But the ace in the hole, all this comes down to, is the D-5. I think 
most people, when they look at this, find out that if you can take a 
boat and hide it somewhere and just sit it somewhere, fine. But I still 
recall, when Les Aspin was the chairman of the committee, bringing in 
some admirals and generals from the old Soviet Union, as it was then 
constituted, and talked about how difficult it was to stay up with the 
modernization of the United States. And the key to this whole thing is 
modernization. C-4 has been a reliable missile, but it is the D-5 that 
now gives us the ace in the hole.
  It would seem to me that now we have the opportunity to finish out 
all 14 boats, get them up to this very, very accurate missile, a 
missile with more range, a missile that can do the job that gives us 
that deciding edge that we finally won with the Soviet Union years ago. 
It would be very foolish, in my humble opinion, to do away with it. It 
also puts our negotiators in a very bad position when we have Congress 
micromanaging what they are going to do and what type of armament they 
would use.
  I have great respect for my friend from Minnesota, but in my humble 
opinion, it would be a smart thing to defeat this amendment and go 
ahead with the production of the D-5.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad], cosponsor of the amendment.
  (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Ramstad amendment 
to terminate further production of the Trident D-5 submarine launched 
ballistic missile. As we continue our efforts here to balance the 
budget and reduce the Federal debt, each and every Government program, 
including defense, must be scrutinized for potential savings. The 
further production of the Trident D-5 missile is one such program.
  We already have over 350 Trident D-5's in service. At a cost of over 
$50 million each, we simply cannot afford to continue increasing the 
size of this missile force, nor do we need to, as our missile 
capability is more than adequate. By ending production of this missile, 
we will save taxpayers $5.7 billion over the next 10 years, without 
sacrificing our national security.
  We must all strongly support the need for a strong national defense. 
But, at the same time, we cannot continue to fund programs that 
excessively spend scarce resources.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Chairman, let me read from this letter from Taxpayers for Common 
Sense:

       As the United States moves to a balanced budget, it is 
     unacceptable for taxpayers to finance an outdated missile 
     program originally designed to counter Cold War threats. With 
     350 D-5 missiles already in service, the U.S. Navy is well-
     equipped, making further D-5 purchases unnecessary. Only a 
     select few nations possess SLBM capabilities. The United 
     States already leads the world in this area, with 4 other 
     nations, Russia, China, France and Great Britain, all 
     trailing in the distance. To the extent that the SLBM remains 
     a viable strategic weapon in the redefined global arena, the 
     United States possesses an adequate deterrent capability.

  Let us save the taxpayer $5.7 billion. Please vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter from Jill Lancelot 
from Taxpayers for Common Sense:


                                   Taxpayers for Common $ense,

                                                    June 19, 1997.

  Support Luther-Ramstad Amendment to DOD Bill: Cut D-5 Missile--Save 
                              $5.7 Billion

       Dear Representatives Luther and Ramstad: Taxpayers for 
     Common $ense is pleased to support the Luther-Ramstad 
     amendment to the FY98 Defense Authorization Bill to end 
     further procurement of the D-5 submarine-launched ballistic 
     missile (SLBM) and deactivate eight Trident submarines 
     currently equipped with an older missile system. This 
     amendment would both eliminate future purchases of a weapon 
     costing $50 million per missile and cancel the backfitting of 
     submarines with older missile systems, leading to ultimate 
     savings of $5.7 billion.
       As the United States moves to a balanced budget, it is 
     unacceptable for taxpayers to finance an outdated missile 
     program originally designed to counter Cold War threats. With 
     350D-5 missiles currently in service, the U.S. Navy is more 
     than well-equipped, making further D-5 purchases unnecessary. 
     Only a select few nations possess SLBM capabilities. The U.S. 
     already leads the world in this area, with four other 
     nations, Russia, China, France and Great Britain, all 
     trailing in the distance. To the extent that the SLBM still 
     remains a viable strategic weapon in the redefined global 
     arena, the U.S. possesses an adequate deterrent capability.
       To ensure that we achieve the goal of a balanced budget, 
     Congress must make difficult decisions regarding each and 
     every dollar. Your amendment represents a sensible balance 
     between sound defense policy and sound budget policy.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jill Lancelot,
                                             Legislative Director.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond 
briefly to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota cited a taxpayer group and 
their decision, their unilateral decision to disarm approximately one-
third of America's most important leg of the strategic triad on the 
basis that they think it is a good deal and it makes sense. I might 
remind my colleagues that of all of the hundreds of arms control 
experts and military experts and deterrent experts that we rely on, 
including our scientists and our policy-makers, whether they are 
liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, in the administration or 
in the Congress, none of those people have been cited as justifying or 
backing up this unilateral decision to jump start or prejump the 
negotiators by sacrificing one-third of our underwater deterrent. No 
experts have been cited. It just looks like it is a good deal for a 
taxpayers group.
  I would suggest that the reason this defense budget today is $140 
billion less than the defense budget in 1985 is because we were strong, 
and we built lots of Tridents and we put them in the water. That 
brought the Russians to the negotiating table. The Russians were never 
brought to the negotiating table by us making unilateral concessions. 
They were brought to the negotiating table by us being strong and then 
doing one for one, under Ronald Reagan and George Bush and now under 
Bill Clinton. That means they give a chip, we give a chip. We do not 
unilaterally pull the rug out from under our negotiators by giving up 
big pieces of our triad.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, in fact I think Secretary Longuemare makes a 
good point in support of what the gentleman just said:

       Delaying the backfit of 4 SSBNs with D-5 missiles sends the 
     wrong message to Russia. It removes Russia's incentive to 
     ratify START II in a timely manner and begin START III 
     negotiations as agreed in Helsinki.

  I have to agree. I think this would send the wrong message. If we are 
going to bring down the strategic forces, we want to bring them down on 
both sides.
  I also would take some umbrage about the status of the Russian Navy. 
As the ranking Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence and someone who has served 19 years on defense 
appropriations, this is one area in the submarine area where the 
Russians are still making significant investments. I would not 
characterize their submarine capabilities as defective or weak. They 
have very capable submarines, particularly in the attack area.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, in the past Members of Congress were 
oftentimes reluctant to propose decreases in defense spending. Those 
who had the temerity to suggest that we cut the spending that we do for 
the military or in areas of weaponry could pretty much expect to see a 
30-second ad attacking their courage, their character, and their 
patriotism.

[[Page H4106]]

  Things are changing here in Washington. This is a new Congress and it 
is a new era. No longer do we have programs that are immune from 
scrutiny. No longer do we not look at how we spend taxpayers' dollars. 
Every dollar spent must be justified.
  I join the gentleman from Minnesota in supporting their proposal to 
strip the unnecessary and ultimately wasteful proposal within this 
Department of Defense budget to continue production of Trident D-5 
missiles, and in doing so, to save the American taxpayer $5.7 billion. 
Thomas Jefferson said many, many, many years ago:

       Sound principles will not justify our taxing the industry 
     of our fellow citizen to accumulate treasure for wars to 
     happen we know not when and which might not ever happen but 
     from the temptation offered by that treasure.

  I think that is still true today. With this amendment, we are not 
hurting our capability to wage war in the future should that become 
necessary. Even if we choose to retire our aging vessels, we are left 
with 10 modern submarines equipped with 240 D-5 missiles. More 
appropriately we have the appropriate number left behind for testing 
and replacement and we will save the public $5.7 billion.
  This DOD proposal is a poor use of resources. By eliminating the 
backfitting of the C-4 subs, we will stop what is essentially a plan to 
put old wine in new bottles. The C-4 subs are too old to have a lot of 
service life left in them and they are likely to be eliminated as has 
been suggested by START II. But even if we keep the C-4's, a 1992 DOD 
study said that the current C-4 missiles would last until 2015. This 
proposal in no way will do what others have suggested, that we are 
stripping some of our submarines of arms. The internal documents of the 
Department of Defense suggest that that is just not true.
  I support this cut. I hope others will as well. I think they should 
stand up for the principle here and feel secure in their patriotism 
because Calvin Coolidge once said, ``Patriotism is easy to understand 
in America. It means looking out for yourself by looking out for your 
country.''
  This amendment is good for our country.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] and the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks], and others, in opposing the amendment. I know 
the amendment is genuinely offered. I was an opponent of the D-5 
missile at the beginning of the program because frankly I felt the 
original missile was adequate. The reality, however, is that the 
argument that the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] makes about a 
unified system without the complexities and costs of supporting two 
missiles in the same operation really has to win the day here. There 
was a time when I thought we could have done without the D-5 missile. 
But now as we have moved to a point where it is the dominant system out 
there and we need to make sure we complete that work here today because 
of the effect overall on the cost of maintenance, supply, of training, 
it adds a complication to a smaller Navy that frankly is bothersome and 
frankly is something that we cannot afford to do.
  I would join my colleagues in opposing the amendment.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am especially pleased to speak on behalf 
of this amendment because it represents a cause that I have taken up in 
the past. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther] and the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad] for bringing it back to the 
floor yet again.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue here is simple. We no longer need the Trident 
D-5 missile to defend our country. This missile was designed 
specifically to counter the threat of the Soviet Union, a threat which 
no longer exists. Under this amendment, Mr. Chairman, the United States 
will retain its current inventory of Trident D-5 missiles and 
submarines. All this amendment will do is stop further production of 
this costly missile, saving Americans $342 million next year and saving 
over 10 years $5.7 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, we should be reducing our nuclear stockpile, not 
building it up. Stopping production of the Trident will send a clear 
message that the United States is truly committed to a nuclear 
nonproliferation policy.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not fool ourselves. Production of the Trident 
missile is the equivalent of flushing $5.7 billion down the toilet over 
the next 10 years when we should actually be funding programs that we 
truly need, such as education, job training, health care, and 
environmental protection.
  The cold war is history, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in closing this chapter of the history book by supporting the 
Luther-Ramstad amendment.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Luther-Ramstad 
amendment. We can safely reduce our fleet of Trident submarines to 10 
and that will make us save $344 million. I would say that nuclear 
weapons are becoming obsolete, but that is not important. What is 
important is what the experts say. This last December, 60 generals and 
admirals, including Gen. Lee Butler, who was the former Commander of 
the U.S. Strategic Air Command, called for the eventual elimination of 
nuclear weapons.
  General Butler's statement reads in part: ``With the end of the cold 
war, these weapons are of sharply reduced utility, and there is much to 
be gained by substantially reducing their numbers.'' He went on to say, 
``We should explore the feasibility of their ultimate complete 
elimination.''
  Obviously, we should not be putting in new nuclear weapons. What do 
the American people say? In an April poll, 77 percent of those 
questioned favored the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 3\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all express my thanks to 
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the chairman of the 
committee; the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the ranking 
member; and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for their 
consideration. Also, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Ramstad] and all of the other speakers who spoke so eloquently on 
behalf of this amendment.
  Before we move to a vote on this issue, I would like to leave just a 
couple of thoughts with the Members of the House. First of all, please 
keep in mind that unlike the B-2 bomber, the D-5 missile is not a dual-
use weapons system. There is no conventional warfare role for the D-5. 
Its sole utility is as a strategic nuclear weapon. If my colleagues are 
interested in voting to cut a weapons system that will not affect our 
ability to wage the conventional or regional wars that we must be 
prepared for, this is the system.
  Second, keep in mind our experience with the Minuteman III land-based 
ICBM. Many of my colleagues will remember the plans in the 1980's to 
replace the Minuteman with the MX. We decided to scrap those plans. 
Today the Minuteman III serves as the backbone of our land-based leg of 
the triad. The C-4 missiles we are retiring are much more modern 
weapons than the Minuteman III's.
  Under this amendment we will continue to have 18 Trident subs through 
the year 2001 and we will not be down to 10 subs until 2005. Until that 
date, the C-4 missile will continue to serve its important role in our 
strategic defense just like the Minuteman III.
  The opponents of this amendment have made the same arguments here on 
the floor that have been made over the years, to run our defense budget 
up to the level that it is at today and to run the debt of this country 
up to the $5.3 trillion of debt that we have today.
  I urge Members of the House to reject that approach today. A vote for 
this amendment will save $5.7 billion of unnecessary spending. My 
colleagues have made that commitment to their constituents to do away 
with unnecessary spending.

[[Page H4107]]

                              {time}  1215

  And we can use that money for other more important purposes or to 
help balance the budget.
  I thank my colleagues for their consideration.
  The CHAIRMAN. The remaining time is 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hunter] who has the right to close.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is an example of snatching defeat from the 
jaws of victory. We have an arms control process that is walking down 
the line that has taken us to the point where we are waiting for the 
Soviet Union to ratify the second arms agreement. We have got a 
situation where we can get a quid pro quo; that means when we take down 
a weapons system, the Soviet Union, now Russia, will take down a 
weapons system, and I want to answer just a couple of things that the 
proponents of this amendment made that are just not the case, a couple 
of their arguments.
  First, this does not save any money. According to the Navy it is $2.3 
billion to upgrade the C-4 missile. If we are not going to have the D-
5, we are going to have to upgraded the C-4. That is $2.3 billion. 
According to the Navy, if we add all the termination costs, we are 
actually going to pay, the taxpayers will pay, 60 million more dollars 
to maintain the old C-4 missile then to complete the project on the D-5 
missile. So we do not save money for the taxpayers according to the 
Navy. We spend an extra $60 million.
  But second and most importantly, there have been no experts here that 
have said that we should unilaterally eliminate this program without 
getting anything from the Soviet Union. The assembled admirals and 
generals who were quoted here simply said we should eventually do away 
with nuclear weapons. Well, the best way to eventually do away with 
nuclear weapons is to have something to negotiate with to get the 
Soviets to and the Russians to walk down on their inventory.
  This is giving up something unilaterally that means we will not get a 
concession from Russia for it, we will not get an SS-18 removed, we 
will not get one of their strategic boats removed, we will simply make 
a unilateral concession.
  So we get nothing for it economically, we get nothing for it in terms 
of arms control; it is not an amendment of value, it is a dangerous 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the gentleman. He 
has got this exactly right. This is one of those ironies. If we kill 
the D-5, we are going to spend more on the existing missile which is 
less capable. It is less capable. And then we got 2 systems, we are 
going to have the duplication in repair, spare parts and everything 
else.
  So let us stay with the program. At some point in the future, as my 
colleagues know, we may get down to 14, but that is going to be when we 
have agreed to it, when there is a negotiated agreement between the 2 
sides.
  To do it unilaterally I think would be a very serious mistake, and I 
urge a no vote on the Luther Ramstad amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for his 
very articulate statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge a no vote 
on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under section 2(c) of the rule, the gentleman does have 
that right and is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to both 
sides of this debate, and I would like to indicate to my colleagues 
that I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my 
distinguished colleague.
  Now let us have the discussion.
  I would ask my colleagues:
  ``Would you authorize new construction on a base you're going to 
close?''
  The point I make here is that if we know where we are headed, we know 
where we are going, the only issue is how do we get there most 
efficiently, most effectively, and, in this limited dollar environment, 
most economically.
  I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we think boldly, not this 
incremental cautious step that ends up costing the American taxpayers 
billions and billions of dollars at a time when we do not need to spend 
them.
  Now, when my colleagues on this side of the aisle in support of the 
amendment have indicated that it would save them $5.67 billion, Mr. 
Chairman, that is only part of the savings.
  My colleagues who oppose this amendment said: But we will have to 
upgrade C-4 missiles.
  Think boldly. I am going to give my colleagues a proposal that does 
not require them to improve C-4 missiles.
  Think boldly. I am going to give my colleagues a proposal that does 
not require them to retrofit.
  Think boldly. I am going to give my colleagues a proposal that does 
not allow them to have to worry about two missiles.
  We are sitting here debating about whether it is boats or missiles. 
It is about warheads. The boats and the missiles are only the delivery 
system. What we are looking at, at this point, are a large number of 
boats with few warheads.
  Think boldly. Few boats, greater number of warheads, saving the 
American taxpayers not just $5.7 billion, but two to three times more 
money at a time that we live in a limited dollar environment.
  What is the proposal? Go now to 10 boats. The Navy could then with 10 
boats meet essential requirements under START II today and the 
anticipated requirements under START III framework tomorrow. We can do 
both simultaneously.
  Think boldly. Not from 16, 14, 13, 12; go to 10. My colleagues know 
where they are headed. Save the money.
  We have been talking about a 5-year budget agreement where we have to 
scrutinize every dollar. Well, get out of this little cautious approach 
that we have and save people money. By varying the number of missiles 
outloaded per boat and the number of warheads uploaded per missile this 
can be accomplished within the current 350-missile inventory.
  This approach would save us, as I said, from expensive C-5 retrofit 
for four to eight boats. That is not necessary, the multibillion-dollar 
cost to buy 84 D-5 missiles planned through the year 2005, and the 
operation and support costs associated with the above.
  Do the math on that, Mr. Chairman; we have saved the American 
taxpayer $10, $15 billion.
  But move beyond the point that they are trying to make. We all know 
that we are trying to go to a new world. We all know that we are moving 
toward fewer and fewer nuclear weapons and greater capability.
  My colleague from California says this is unilateral disarmament. 
That is bizarre. What we are looking at, at this point, is the Navy 
buying a fixed amount of missiles and then varying the boats.
  Now, one does not have to be too smart to recognize that a boat costs 
a hell of a lot of money, a lot more money than the missile. I say turn 
it around, think rationally, vary the number of missiles, fix the 
number of boats. Go quickly to 10. I know it is bold, but I want to 
shake my colleagues up some. We have been talking about saving American 
people money. This is not about unilateralism. Those are euphemisms and 
hot-button words, but rational intelligent, thought says that we ought 
to go someplace, save money.
  With those thoughts I am in enthusiastic and overwhelming support to 
the gentleman's amendment.
  One last point. If there is any problem with the gentleman's 
amendment, it is that he has thought further out than most people have 
thought. He got here faster than anybody got here. This debate is a 
preview of a debate that we are going to have next year and the year 
after next. I compliment the gentleman for his over-the-horizon forward 
thinking. He got there before everybody did. He put before this body 
what needs to be discussed, and it needs to be discussed now, and the 
earlier we start to think about it, the better off we will be.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to exercise the 
authority to strike the last word.

[[Page H4108]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take this time to engage 
with my colleague and with the other side, and I just want to go over 
the points that have been made earlier and the points that he spoke to.
  First, according to the Navy, and if we are going to save money, we 
have got to put a pencil to the balance sheet and we have to try to 
figure out whether extending the life of the C-4 is going to be cheaper 
or more expensive than buying the rest of the D-5. If money, and I 
would submit there is a lot more to this debate than just money, but if 
money is the object, we have got to put a pencil to it and see if it 
works. According to the Navy it does not work, and we end up spending 
$60 million more extending the life of the C-4 missile then completing 
the program on D-5. Now that is the fact.
  Second, let me just say to my friend, as my colleagues know, this is 
a long debate that we have been in; he and I have debated arms control 
for 16 years now, and I can recall the early days of the 1980's when 
Ronald Reagan was building a stronger strategic deterrent. My friend 
answered ``No, that is not the way to go, and you are driving the 
Russians away from the bargaining table,'' and when the Russians were 
lining our European allies' borders with SS-20 missiles and Ronald 
Reagan said we are going to put in ground-launched cruise missiles and 
Pershings to meet them, and there was enormous debate in Europe in the 
mid 1980's, there were many people on this side of the ocean, many 
pundits, many journalists, many Members of Congress who said, ``You are 
driving the Russians away from the negotiating table,'' but by being 
strong and by establishing a reinforced strategic triad, and that 
included our land based systems, going with the B-1 bomber on our air 
breathing systems and putting more capability into our undersea systems 
we brought the Russians to the negotiating table, and one day the phone 
rang and all of a sudden the Russians wanted to talk, and we started 
down this trail of arms negotiations.
  But the genius of our side in the arms negotiations and reductions 
has been that we have gotten a quid pro quo for everything we have 
given up, we have gotten something in return. The President of the 
United States said ``Trust but verify.'' We do not unilaterally make 
concessions. That has worked, Mr. Chairman. We are now walking the 
Russians down on arms control.
  So the gentleman's ascertation that this is a brilliant thing for 
Congress to unilaterally start giving up pieces of the strategic triad 
in anticipation of a third arms control agreement when the second arms 
control agreement has not even been ratified by the Russian Duma does 
not make any sense in that it is totally inconsistent with our history. 
And I think my friend wants to talk, and I am going to yield to him.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  Mr. DELLUMS. One very quick response to the gentleman is: The logic. 
Do we build up to build down. To build up we are going to spend 
billions of dollars and we know we are ultimately going to build down. 
That is the answer to the gentleman's point, that is the central part 
of this debate, and that is what needs to be developed. If we accept 
the logic of spending money going up so we negotiate to go down, the 
gentleman may have a point.
  I do not see the point in that, I do not see the wisdom, and I 
certainly do not see the economics.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I will explain what I think is the wisdom 
there.
  We are going to a smaller and smaller strategic triad. Both sides 
have agreed that part of the triad that remains is going to be as 
modern and effective and as reliable as possible.
  Now our experts have determined that the most reliable part of the 
strategic triad is the undersea part; it is certainly the most 
invulnerable part, and that the D-5 missile is an important component 
of that part of the strategic triad. It is the most modern, the most 
accurate, the most effective, the most reliable.
  So when we are going to build down and we are going to get down to a 
smaller number of units, carrying that very important American 
deterrent, we want to have the best.
  Now the Russians, I would offer to my friend, have done exactly the 
same thing. They have not thrown away their modern stuff and left their 
old stuff. They have kept the most modern part of their own strategic 
triad in place.
  It is our right under the arms control agreement to stay strong in 
that respect. I think we owe it to the American people to stay strong 
in that respect.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  Mr. DELLUMS. To establish some reality to people who are listening to 
this debate, we already have 350 of these missiles. The debate is 
whether we buy 84 additional ones. I am saying that is the build up to 
build down.
  In my proposal we can stay within the anticipated requirements of 
START II, of the START II negotiation, and what we anticipate in START 
III, we can do that within the current inventory of 350. Why buy 84 
more because we know we are going to come down again?
  That logic escapes me; the gentleman cannot make me understand that.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Luther].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther] 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                              {time}  1230

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 169, it is 
now in order to consider amendment No. 22 in part 2 of House Report 
105-137.


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Hefley:
       At the end of title XXXIV (page 504, after line 3), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 3404. TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION, NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVES 
                   NUMBERED 1 AND 3.

       (a) Transfer Required.--Chapter 641 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 7439. CERTAIN OIL SHALE RESERVES: TRANSFER OF 
                   JURISDICTION AND PETROLEUM EXPLORATION, 
                   DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION

       ``(a) Transfer Required.--(1) Upon the enactment of this 
     section, the Secretary of Energy shall transfer to the 
     Secretary of the Interior administrative jurisdiction over 
     all public domain lands included within Oil Shale Reserve 
     Numbered 1 and those public domain lands included within the 
     undeveloped tract of Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 3.
       ``(2) Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     transfer to the Secretary of the Interior administrative 
     jurisdiction over those public domain lands included within 
     the developed tract of Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 3, which 
     consists of approximately 6,000 acres and 24 natural gas 
     wells, together with pipelines and associated facilities.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding the transfer of jurisdiction, the 
     Secretary of Energy shall continue to be responsible for all 
     environmental restoration, waste management, and 
     environmental compliance activities that are required under 
     Federal and State laws with respect to conditions existing on 
     the lands at the time of the transfer.
       ``(4) Upon the transfer to the Secretary of the Interior of 
     jurisdiction over public domain lands under this subsection, 
     the other provisions of this chapter shall cease to apply 
     with respect to the transferred lands.
       ``(b) Authority to Lease.--(1) Beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this section, or as soon thereafter as 
     practicable, the Secretary of the Interior shall enter into 
     leases with one or more private entities for the purpose of 
     exploration for, and development and production of, petroleum 
     (other than in the form of oil shale) located on or in public 
     domain lands in Oil Shale Reserves Numbered 1 and 3 
     (including the developed tract of Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 
     3). Any such lease shall be made in accordance with the 
     requirements of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C 181 et 
     seq.) regarding the lease of oil

[[Page H4109]]

     and gas lands and shall be subject to valid existing rights.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding the delayed transfer of the developed 
     tract of Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 3 under subsection 
     (a)(2), the Secretary of the Interior shall enter into a 
     lease under paragraph (1) with respect to the developed tract 
     before the end of the one-year period beginning on the date 
     of the enactment of this section.
       ``(c) Management.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting 
     through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, shall 
     manage the lands transferred under subsection (a) in 
     accordance with the Federal and Land Policy and Management 
     Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and other laws 
     applicable to the public lands.
       ``(d) Transfer of Existing Equipment.--The lease of lands 
     by the Secretary of the Interior under this section may 
     include the transfer, at fair market value, of any well, 
     gathering line, or related equipment owned by the United 
     States on the lands transferred under subsection (a) and 
     suitable for use in the exploration, development, or 
     production of petroleum on the lands.
       ``(e) Cost Minimization.--The cost of any environmental 
     assessment required pursuant to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection 
     with a proposed lease under this section shall be paid out of 
     unobligated amounts available for administrative expenses of 
     the Bureau of Land Management.
       ``(f) Distribution of Receipts.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, all moneys received from a lease under this 
     section (including sales, bonuses, royalties (including 
     interest charges collected under the Federal Oil and Gas 
     Royalty Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), and 
     rentals) shall be paid and distributed under section 35 of 
     the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 191) in the same manner as 
     moneys derived from other oil and gas leases involving public 
     domain lands other than naval petroleum reserves.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The tale of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:
``7439. Certain oil shale reserves: transfer of jurisdiction and 
              petroleum exploration, development, and production.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley] and a Member opposed, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have an amendment that would transfer the administrative 
jurisdiction over oil shale reserves 1 and 3 from the Department of 
Energy to the Bureau of Land Management at the Department of the 
Interior. It would direct the leasing of oil and gas, natural gas 
rights on two reserves and the outright sale of some existing 
equipment.
  The bill is based upon discussions between the two departments. It 
embodies four points of agreement between the two agencies. It reflects 
recommendations of an Energy Department report entitled ``Report and 
Recommendations on Management and Disposition of Naval Petroleum Oil 
Shale Reserves.'' This report was a request from the Subcommittee on 
Military Readiness of the Committee on National Security last year.
  The Department of Energy would be responsible for 50 acres of cleanup 
at the NOSR site 3. The amendment specifies that any environmental 
assessment costs for the leasing program will be funded out of 
unobligated administrative funds at the Bureau of Land Management. The 
amendment will allow a continuing revenue stream to the United States 
Transfer and leasing would, at worst, result in no loss to the Treasury 
and has the potential to rake in as much as $126 million in Federal 
revenues over the next 10 years. Even the CBO's conservative estimates 
give this amendment a positive score of $10 million.
  The State of Colorado has done a study which appears to show that the 
Federal share of royalty revenues through the first 5 years of the 
leasing program could total up to $53.1 million. Later revenues could 
run that total to $126.6 million.
  Leasing under my amendment would be conducted under the Mineral 
Leasing Act of 1920. Precedent has been set for a 50-50 royalty split 
under that act. This split was developed through negotiations on 
leasing of oil on National Petroleum Reserve No. 4 in Alaska in the 
1970's, and it took 40 years to develop this agreement. The split is 
also endorsed by the Energy Department.
  The Committee on Resources apparently has no problem with inclusion 
in the defense authorization, as long as the 50-50 split is maintained.
  In conclusion, this is an issue that has been around for at least 8 
years that I have been involved in it. Senator Campbell first 
introduced it over here, and I got a bill in the past two Congresses. 
Two years ago I asked that it be included in the defense mark. It was 
believed more study was needed and ordered the Energy Department to 
study the issue. This spring the Energy Department delivered this 
report which I showed earlier, and its findings mirrored this 
amendment. I am trying to do in this amendment what the Energy 
Department in their study and the Department of the Interior have 
suggested that we do.
  Despite these findings, this proposal has not been seriously 
considered, and despite the fact its central premise is endorsed by the 
very report the subcommittee commissioned. The amendment offers us the 
opportunity to benefit the State, private industry, and the Federal 
Treasury, and that is a rare opportunity. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I 
ask for the support of the body.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment and wish 
that I had more than 5 minutes in order to explain the background and 
the reason why.
  I am not in disagreement with the gentleman's amendment insofar as it 
calls for the leasing of the naval oil shale petroleum reserves. I 
agree with him that this is the better disposition of these properties 
in terms of the benefit to the taxpayers of the United States, whose 
resource or asset this is.
  These properties were set aside by the Federal Government after the 
turn of the century when the Navy turned from coal-fired to oil-fired 
vessels. They are no longer recorded as necessary to national security 
purposes, and the property, therefore, can appropriately be disposed 
of. But it ought to be disposed of in a way that the profit or the 
income derived therefrom redound to the benefit of all of the people 
and all of the States of the United States.
  The problem that I have with the gentleman's amendment is that, by 
transferring the properties from the Department of Energy to the 
Department of the Interior and directing their leasing under the 
Mineral Leasing Act, it essentially has the practical effect of saying 
that 50 percent of all of the revenues generated from the leasing will 
redound to the State of Colorado, and only 50 percent, instead of 100 
percent, will redound to the benefit of all of the other States of the 
Union.
  We are dealing here with property which has always been Federal 
property. It was Federal when Utah, Colorado, and California entered 
the Union; it has been Federal through all of the years since. Now that 
it is not necessary for national security purposes and should be 
disposed of, it should be disposed of in a way that redounds best to 
the interest of all of the States of the Union and its taxpayers.
  While I have no disagreement with any equitable claims that Colorado 
may mount as to having added value that generates additional revenue 
and there being recompense for it, nor would I have any objection, 
since we are dealing with a resource that we are using only for 
purposes of generating revenue, to Colorado receiving income in lieu of 
taxes as they would on private property that was being leased. But I do 
not see the reason, nor the equity, of the taxpayers of America, whose 
asset this is, receiving only 50 percent of the benefit.
  There is a further problem with the amendment in that it deals only 
with the Naval Oil Shale Petroleum Reserves 1 and 3 in Colorado. It 
does not deal with the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 2 in California, nor 
with the naval petroleum reserves in Utah, nor Naval Oil Shale Reserve 
No. 2 in, I believe, Wyoming. This is a defect in the bill in the 
context of how to work out a total solution of the proper and most 
sound disposition of these resources.
  It is for those reasons that I would ask for a no vote on the 
gentleman's amendment, and hope that we will be able to work with the 
Senate, which has a different provision in their bill, in order to see 
that an equitable and comprehensive disposition is made of these 
properties.

[[Page H4110]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] and I agree on most aspects 
of this. He is just scared to death that Colorado might get something 
that it does not deserve.
  I make no argument when the State of Virginia gets help cleaning up 
the Chesapeake Bay, which we did not pollute, but I think it is 
important that we clean it up. But he seems to be afraid that we are 
going to get something in the West that we should not have.
  This amendment mirrors the recommendations of a report delivered to 
the Subcommittee on Military Readiness in March. That report 
recommended the transfer and leasing of all three Navy oil shale 
reserves, the two involved in this amendment and one in Utah. The 
Energy Department endorsed transfer and leasing because it says in the 
report BLM management would yield a wide variety of economic and 
noneconomic benefits to the Nation. The amendment also retains the 
split, as we have already talked about.
  Let me explain why this is a good thing. First, it is the law. The 
Mineral Leasing Act provides an exemption for a revenue split on 
strategic properties, but the only time the subject has arisen under 
the Department of Energy involved NPR No. 4 in Alaska in the 1970's. 
After lawsuits and much negotiations, the two sides settled on the 50-
50 split.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield whatever time I have remaining to the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. McInnis].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] is recognized 
for 10 seconds.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, what the good gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley] has said is absolutely correct. This is the recommendation of 
the Department of Energy and I urge my colleagues to support it. It 
makes budgetary sense, and again, it follows the recommendations of the 
Department of Energy.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  No. 1, let me say that these properties were exempted at all times up 
to the present time from the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act. 
They have always been Federal properties, Federal assets, and I think 
the disposition of them should redound to the benefit of all of the 
people of the United States. This is not a Virginia issue versus 
Colorado; this is 49 States versus Colorado in terms of a fair 
disposition of the properties.
  Let me conclude by saying that, while, yes, the Department of Energy 
recommends for these properties what the gentleman from Colorado is 
suggesting, it is with some significance that the Secretary of Energy, 
the new Secretary of Energy is the former mayor of the city of Denver, 
which the last time I checked, was in Colorado.
  What I am suggesting is a more equitable disposition that is in 
keeping with the findings of the General Accounting Office, and I would 
again ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment. There are 
many reasons, but three are particularly important:
  First, because it cuts red tape. DOE isn't a land-management agency, 
and the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) already 
does most of the management of these lands, under an agreement with 
DOE. Our amendment would simply make BLM's role permanent, and end 
duplication.
  Second, because it's good for multiple-use management: Oil shale 
isn't a realistic energy source now, but some of these lands also have 
potential for natural gas. Under our amendment, BLM would make these 
areas available for leasing, under the same laws that govern leasing of 
other lands BLM manages. At the same time, other uses (like grazing, 
hunting, and fishing) would continue under experienced BLM management.
  And, third, because it's good for the environment: Part of these 
lands have high environmental values, including many rare plants and 
animals. Under our amendment, BLM, through its planning process, will 
provide for their continued protection and will consider whether some 
of these lands should be set aside as wilderness or given other special 
protected designation.
  Mr. Chairman, transferring these lands to BLM makes sense, and has 
been recommended by the administration. I urge the House to follow that 
recommendation and to approve this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 169, it is 
now in order to consider amendment No. 41 in part 2 of House Report 
105-137.


         Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

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

       Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania:
       At the end of title XII (page 379, after line 19), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1205. PRESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATIONS CONCERNING DETARGETING 
                   OF RUSSIAN INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES.

       (a) Required Certifications.--Not later than January 1, 
     1998, the President shall submit to Congress a report 
     containing a certification by the President of each of the 
     following:
       (1) Whether it is possible for the United States to verify 
     by technical means that a Russian ICBM is or is not targeted 
     at a site in the United States.
       (2) The length of time it would take for a Russian ICBM 
     formerly, but no longer, targeted at a site in the United 
     States to be retargeted at a site in the United States.
       (3) Whether a Russian ICBM that was formerly, but is no 
     longer, targeted at a site in the United States would be 
     automatically retargeted at a site in the United States in 
     the event of an accidental launch of such missile.
       (b) Russian ICBMs Defined.--For purposes of subsection (a), 
     the term ``Russian ICBM'' means an intercontinental ballistic 
     missile of the Russian Federation.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Weldon] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this 
amendment, which may seem unimportant to some, but which is perhaps in 
my opinion one of the most important statements that this body will 
make in this bill this year.
  Mr. Chairman, as all of us know, the funding level for what our 
military needs are is largely determined by the threat that is 
perceived by the American people and by Members of Congress. So if the 
American people perceive that there is no threat, then in fact they 
want us to cut defense spending. If they in fact think there is an 
emerging threat, then they respond and say increase defense spending.
  Now, our colleagues are going around saying well, the American people 
are satisfied; we are spending too much on defense.
  Mr. Chairman, my question is, why would they think that? Well, Mr. 
Chairman, my amendment gets right to the heart of why they think that, 
because this President, over the last 5 years, has used the bully 
pulpit to drive home a message that I seriously question, and let me 
get at the heart of my amendment.
  On 130 occasions, actually it is 130 and counting, this President has 
made the statement; so it is not just once, three times in this pulpit, 
at universities across the country, in 36 of our States, to women's 
groups, to environmental groups, on college campuses, he has said, and 
I quote: There are no longer Russian missiles pointed at America's 
children.
  Now, he has made this statement not one time, 130 times; and his 
chief advisers in the security operation and the

[[Page H4111]]

Vice President have made that contention 22 more times in public 
speeches. So the President is clearly trying to get the point across to 
America, do not worry; as the Commander in Chief, I certify to you that 
there are no Russian missiles pointed at America's children.
  Mr. Chairman, in testimony before my subcommittee, Bruce Blair, a 
former targeting officer, said that one can retarget a Russian missile 
in 10 seconds. Ed Bradley on CBS News, ``60 Minutes'' interviewed 
General Sergev who in fact headed up strategic command and space for 
Russia and who now is the defense minister.

                              {time}  1245

  He has said there is no way to verify whether or not they are 
targeting their missiles at our children, just like they cannot verify 
ours. But yet the President continues to make this statement, that 
there are no missiles pointed at our children, so all of our 
constituents back home in our districts think, well, if the Commander 
in Chief said they are no longer pointing their missiles at us, that 
must be true.
  My amendment is very simple, Mr. Chairman. It requires the President 
to certify to the Congress that in fact there are no missiles pointed 
at America; that in fact we have a way of verifying that, and also what 
the time would be to retarget a missile, even if we did know.
  Why is this so important? Because when the top leaders of this 
country on 152 occasions on every major media network in every major 
media outlet tell the stories in our cities and towns that we no longer 
have a threat, they respond. They criticize us when we say that we need 
to deal with that threat.
  This amendment is very simple. It says, Mr. President, certify what 
you are saying. You said from this pulpit on three occasions that you 
are confident there are no missiles pointed at America's kids. This 
amendment says, certify that, put that in writing, and verify that for 
this Congress. If you cannot do that, Mr. President, you had better 
stop misinforming the American people.
  Nothing is more fundamental to this debate, because that speech, 
given 130 times by the President, 22 times by the Vice President, by 
the heads of security for this administration, has misled the American 
people. The President has a chance to rectify it. All he has to do is 
give us an official certification that in fact he can certify that 
there are no Russian missiles pointed at our children.
  General Sergeyev from Russia says you cannot do that. Bruce Blair 
says you cannot do that. General Shalikashvili says you cannot do that. 
Secretary Perry told us you cannot do that. But yet the President has 
said it 130 times.
  What we are saying in effect, Mr. Chairman, is, put up or shut up. If 
you cannot verify the statement that you are making to the American 
people about one of the most severe threats facing this country, then 
do not mislead the American people, because from the bully pulpit that 
drives the debate in this country, to have the American people believe 
that they no longer have to worry, that drives the debate on missile 
defense, it drives the debate on the threat, and it drives the debate 
on the systems that we want to fund.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for this very simple amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], I appreciate 
the gentleman's effort to offer this amendment. I share the gentleman's 
concern about the issue of targeting. I rise in opposition not to the 
substance of what my colleague is trying to do, but rather, on 
technical grounds.
  My staff and I have attempted to work with the gentleman's staff in 
trying to achieve some accommodation on this matter on technical 
grounds. We would believe that a report, rather than certification, is 
much more in the realm of reality. Let me tell the gentleman what I am 
thinking and then he can respond.
  I heard the gentleman's speech, but at some point this gets drafted 
into legislative language. Legislative language is very important. The 
gentleman mentioned, required certification. The President must 
certify. Now, what is the President's first certification, whether it 
is possible for the United States to verify by technical means that a 
Russian ICBM is or is not targeted at a site in the United States?
  We can try to verify that it is possible or that it is not possible, 
but trying to verify whether it is possible, I would suggest that that 
is language and a technical change, that it is impossible to verify 
whether. You either certify that something is or it is not, but whether 
it is, I think is inappropriate language. I think that is technically 
flawed.
  Second, how do we verify the length of time it would take for an 
ICBM, a Russian ICBM, formerly but no longer targeted at a site in the 
United States, to be retargeted at a site in the United States? How in 
the real world do you really certify that?
  What I am saying is, I agree with the gentleman with respect to the 
substance of what he is trying to do. I have a technical concern that 
he raises a hurdle beyond which no one, that no one can jump.
  In the real world, I respect the gentleman's sense of fairness and 
fair play. We do not want to set a hurdle that no one can cross and 
then say, gee, you cannot jump the hurdle. There is something 
inappropriate about that. We want to establish a hurdle that makes 
sense with the Government. We are trying to do something reasonable. I 
would think if we could move away from certification to report, that 
makes sense.
  I would like to work with the gentleman, if this amendment goes 
forward, in the context of the conference with the other body to try to 
resolve these matters.
  There is one other thing that I would like to see in the legislation. 
Additional efforts to achieve verifiability, efforts to achieve 
confidence in these matters, if we could put that in, it seems to me 
that would make sense. I am just raising a technical question, not a 
substantive issue.
  I think we are talking about trying to verify some things we cannot 
verify. We ought to, in the legislative process, try to achieve things 
that are achievable, rather than to assert matters that we want to try 
to achieve that in the real world we know we cannot. I know the 
gentleman is not trying to play games in that regard. That is why I am 
prepared to give and take on that. How does he think about those things 
and what is his response?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
and my friend for raising these issues. I pledge to work with him 
through the conference process.
  I would not raise this issue if the President had made this statement 
only one or two times, and I have the actual citation for every time he 
has made the statement. Mr. Chairman, the President has raised this 
issue specifically 130 times. The Vice President and his staff have 
raised it 22 times.
  There is a very deliberate effort on the part of the administration 
to make this same statement, which the gentleman, I think, agrees with 
me on, we cannot verify it, but yet the President continues to make 
this statement. And that drives the mood and the feeling of my 
constituents, because they think, well, if the Commander in Chief says 
this, it must be true.
  I understand the gentleman's concern with the wording, and I would 
say he is probably correct, no wording will probably satisfy this, 
because in the end he knows what the President is going to come back 
and say. We asked DOD to do a report last year on this same issue. They 
came back and said to us in a report, you cannot verify it.
  My point is, even though DOD in a report certified that to us, the 
President, between last year's bill and this year, has made that 
statement time and time again across the country. I

[[Page H4112]]

have no other recourse. I would like to go to the President and say, 
Mr. President, please stop saying this, not just because it is not 
true, but you send the wrong message.
  As the gentleman knows, I am not an alarmist. I have spent a lot of 
time working with Russia. But I would like to be frank and candid and 
open and honest with them. I will confront them on this issue, but I 
think when the President makes this statement, in the context of the 
number of times he has made it since, it is wrong, but I will pledge to 
work with the gentleman through the conference process.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's candor.
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following:

   One Hundred Thirty And Counting: President Clinton Assures Us No 
                     Nuclear Missile Threat Exists

       President Clinton has assured the American people on at 
     least 130 separate occasions that Russian nuclear missiles no 
     longer threaten the United States. On dozens of those 
     occasions--including his October 6, 1996 debate with Senator 
     Bob Dole--he said that no nuclear missiles of any kind 
     threaten America. The following quotes are excerpted from his 
     speeches, interviews, and radio addresses, as downloaded from 
     the ``White House Virtual Library'' on the World Wide Web and 
     other electronic databases.
       1. ``I was proud to go to Russia and sign an agreement 
     where we agreed that for the first time in decades we would 
     no longer even point our missiles at each other.''--President 
     Clinton, Remarks to the Citizens of Atlanta, May 3, 1994.
       2. ``* * * there are no nuclear missiles pointed at us from 
     the Soviet Union [sic], but there are other countries trying 
     to develop nuclear programs.''--President Clinton, Remarks at 
     the Small Business Person of the Year Announcement, Old 
     Executive Office Building, May 4, 1994.
       3. ``And now, for the first time, our nuclear missiles are 
     no longer targeted at Russia, nor theirs ours [sic].''--
     President Clinton, Remarks on CNN Telecast, ``A Global Forum 
     with President Clinton,'' May 4, 1994.
       4. ``* * * the nuclear arsenal in Russia is no longer 
     pointed at the United States, nor are our missiles pointed at 
     them.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the People of Warwick, 
     Rhode Island, May 9, 1994.
       5. ``* * * the United States and Russia at last no longer 
     aim their nuclear weapons at each other.''--President 
     Clinton, Speech at the U.S. Naval Academy Graduation 
     Ceremony, May 25, 1994.
       6. ``* * * for the first time since the dawn of the atomic 
     age, the United States and Russia no longer have nuclear 
     missiles pointed at each other.''--President Clinton, Remarks 
     at Swearing-In Ceremony for the President's Council on 
     Physical Fitness and Sports, Rose Garden, May 31, 1994.
       7. ``We are reducing nuclear stockpiles, and America and 
     Russia no longer aim their nuclear missiles at each 
     other.''--President Clinton, Address to the National 
     Assembly, Paris, France, June 7, 1994.
       8. ``For the first time since World War II * * * Russian 
     and American missiles no longer target each other's people. 
     Three of the four nuclear members of the former Soviet Union 
     have agreed to remove all nuclear weapons from their 
     soil.''--President Clinton, Address to the 49th Session of 
     the United Nations General Assembly, September 26, 1994.
       9. ``Our missiles no longer target each other's people for 
     destruction; instead they are being dismantled.''--President 
     Clinton, Remarks at arrival ceremony for Russian President 
     Boris Yeltsin, South Lawn, the White House, September 27, 
     1994.
       10. ``We've got Russian missiles that are no longer pointed 
     at the United States for the first time since World War 
     II.''--President Clinton, Radio interview with Eileen Ratner, 
     October 7, 1994.
       11. ``* * * Russian President Boris Yeltsin came to further 
     the partnership between our two nations so well expressed by 
     the fact that now Russian and U.S. missiles are no longer 
     pointed at each other's people, and we are working to 
     reduce the nuclear threat even more.''--President Clinton, 
     Address to the Nation, The Oval Office, October 10, 1994.
       12. ``. . . for the first time the missiles of Russia are 
     no longer pointed at the American people. . . .''--President 
     Clinton, Speech to the Citizens of the Bridgeport Area, 
     Stratford, Connecticut, October 15, 1994.
       13. ``The United States and Russian missiles missiles are 
     no longer targeted at each other.''--President Clinton, 
     Saturday Radio Address, October 15, 1994.
       14. ``Russian missiles are no longer pointed at the United 
     States.''--President Clinton, Speech to the International 
     Association of Chiefs of Police, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 
     October 17, 1994.
       15. ``I know that this country is a safer and more secure 
     place because Russian missiles aren't pointing at us and 
     we're making peace in Haiti, the Middle East, Northern 
     Ireland.''--President Clinton, Interview with WLIB radio, New 
     York, October 18, 1994.
       16. ``We also clearly are working to make the world a safer 
     and a more democratic and a freer place. For the first time 
     since the dawn of the nuclear age, Russian missiles are no 
     longer pointed at the United States.''--President Clinton, 
     Remarks to the Governors Leadership Conference on the Future 
     of the Economy, New York, October 19, 1994.
       17. ``Is the fact that Russian missiles are not pointed at 
     your children for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age an abnormal thing? I think that's pretty 
     good.''--President Clinton, Remarks at dinner honoring 
     Kathleen Brown, San Francisco, October 22, 1994.
       18. ``I wanted you to be safer. And that's why I'm so proud 
     of the fact that these little children are the first 
     generation of Americans since the dawn of nuclear power that 
     do not have Russian missiles pointing at them. I'm proud of 
     that.''--President Clinton, Remarks at the Washington State 
     Coordinated Campaign Rally, Seattle, October 23, 1994.
       19. ``...we've had the success in no Russian missiles are 
     pointed at American children for the first time.''--President 
     Clinton, Interview, Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 24, 1994.
       20. ``For the first time since nuclear weapons were 
     developed, no Russian missiles are pointed at the children of 
     Ohio and the United States this year.''--President Clinton, 
     Reception honoring Congressman Thomas Sawyer, Akron, Ohio, 
     October 24, 1994.
       21. ``Russian missiles aren't pointed at Americans for the 
     first time since the beginning of the nuclear age.''--
     President Clinton, Interview, KYW radio, Philadelphia, from 
     Pittsburgh, October 31, 1994.
       22. ``For the first time since nuclear weapons came about, 
     there are no Russian missiles pointed at our people.''--
     President Clinton, Interview, WDIV-TV, Detroit, October 31, 
     1994.
       23. ``The Russian missiles aren't pointing at us for the 
     first time since we've had nuclear weapons.''--President 
     Clinton, Interview, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 31, 
     1994.
       24. ``. . . we've increased trade and reduced the nuclear 
     threat-for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, 
     no Russian missiles are pointing at your children or 
     grandchildren.''--President Clinton, speech to Senior 
     Citizens, Portuguese Social Club, Pawtucket, Rhode 
     Island, November 2, 1994.
       25. ``Here's what the Contract [With America] says--now, 
     pay attention. The contract says, vote for the Republicans, 
     put us in charge in Washington, and here is what we will do. 
     We'll give everybody a tax cut, but mostly people in the 
     upper-income groups--they'll get 70 percent of it. We will 
     increase defense; we will bring back Star Wars; and we will 
     balance the budget. Well, how much does that cost? A trillion 
     dollars. How are we going to pay for it? We'll tell you after 
     the elections. (Laughter.) . . . We [in the administration] 
     have reduced the nuclear threat. For the first time since 
     nuclear weapons were developed, there are no missiles pointed 
     at the children of Iowa and the United States.''--President 
     Clinton, Remarks to the People of Des Moines, Iowa, November 
     3, 1994.
       26. ``And for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear 
     age there are no Russian missiles pointed at the children of 
     Iowa. This is a great country.''--President Clinton, Remarks 
     at Reception for Democratic Candidates, Des Moines, November 
     3, 1994.
       27. ``Here's what they [the Republicans] promise . . . 
     we're going to increase defense and we're going to bring back 
     Star Wars. And then we're going to balance the budget. 
     (Laughter). And how much does that cost? . . . I want you to 
     think about this--we're also moving forward overseas. No 
     Russian missiles are pointed at the children of Minnesota and 
     the United States for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Duluth Campaign rally, 
     Duluth, Minnesota, November 4, 1994.
       28. ``I think it makes a difference that for the first time 
     since the dawn of the nuclear age, there are no Russian 
     nuclear missiles pointed at these children here.''--President 
     Clinton, ``Rally for Victory,'' Oakland, California, November 
     5, 1994.
       29. ``And we're a lot closer toward having a safer, more 
     democratic, more free world. Russian missiles aren't pointing 
     at us . . .''--President Clinton, Interview with Larry King, 
     CNN, November 6, 1994.
       30. ``. . . there are no Russian missiles pointed at these 
     children for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age 
     . . .''--President Clinton, Speech at the Delaware Democrat 
     Rally, Wilmington, Delaware, November 7, 1994.
       31. ``So I think it matters that for the first time since 
     the dawn of the nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles 
     pointed at these children here.''--President Clinton, Speech 
     at ``Get Out the Vote'' rally, Flint, Michigan, November 7, 
     1994.
       32. ``. . . for the first time since the drawn of the 
     nuclear age there are no Russian missiles pointed at the 
     people of the United States.''--President Clinton, Speech on 
     the 75th anniversary of the Edmund J. Walsh School of Foreign 
     Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. November 10, 
     1994.
       33. ``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, 
     not Russian missiles are pointed at Americans.''--President 
     Clinton, Radio Address to the Nation, Elmendorf AFB, 
     Anchorage, Alaska, November 12, 1994.
       34. ``. . . getting the nuclear agreement between Russia 
     and Ukraine which led to no Russian missiles pointed at the 
     United States for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Remarks at Press 
     Conference, Jakarta, Indonesia, November 15, 1994.
       35. ``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, 
     no Russian missiles are pointed at the children of the United 
     States.''--President Clinton, Remarks to

[[Page H4113]]

     U.S.--Pacific Business Community Members and 
     Leaders. November 16, 1994.
       36. ``. . . if you look at the fact that in Russia for the 
     first time since nuclear weapons came on the face of the 
     earth, there are no Russian missiles pointed at American 
     children, you'd have to say we're on the move.''--President 
     Clinton, Remarks to Military Personnel and Families at Hickam 
     Air Force Base, Honolulu, Hawaii, November 16, 1994.
       37. ``This is the first Thanksgiving since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age when parents can tuck their children into bed at 
     night knowing that no Russian missiles are pointed at the 
     children of the United States.''--President Clinton, Radio 
     Address from Camp David, November 26, 1994.
       38. ``This is the first State of the Union address ever 
     delivered since the beginning of the Cold War when not a 
     single Russian missile is pointed at the children of 
     America.''--President Clinton, State of the Union address, 
     January 24, 1995.
       39. ``There are no Russian missiles pointed at America now 
     for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age.''--
     President Clinton, Interview with Tom Brokaw, NBC Nightly 
     News, January 26, 1995.
       40. ``As a result of an agreement President Yeltsin and I 
     reached, for the first time in a generation Russian missiles 
     are not pointed at our cities or our citizens. . . . [Per the 
     terms of START I] Both our countries are dismantling the 
     weapons as fast as we can. And thanks to a far-reaching 
     verification system, including on-site inspections which 
     began in Russia and the United States today, each of us knows 
     exactly what the other is doing.''--President Clinton, 
     Remarks to the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom Policy 
     Conference, Washington, D.C., March 1, 1995.
       41. ``And for the first time since the dawn of the Nuclear 
     Age, there are no nuclear missiles pointed at the children of 
     the United States of America.''--President Clinton, Address 
     to the Faculty and Students of Hillsborough Community 
     College, Tampa, Florida, March 30, 1995.
       42. ``And for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear 
     age, there are no nuclear missiles pointed at the children of 
     the United States today.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the 
     Florida State Legislature, Tallahassee, Florida, March 30, 
     1995.
       43. ``I am proud of the fact that since I've been President 
     there are no Russian missiles pointed at the children of the 
     United States for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Remarks at the Dean B. 
     Ellis Library Dedication, Arkansas State University, 
     Jonesboro, Arkansas, April 3, 1995.
       44. ``The second thing that we have to pay attention to is 
     the security of our people--our security from attack from 
     abroad, and our security from within. I'm proud of the fact 
     that since I have been president, for the first time since 
     the dawn of the nuclear age there are no Russian missiles 
     pointed at the children of the United States of America.''--
     President Clinton, Remarks to the National Building and 
     Construction Trades Department Conference, Washington, D.C., 
     April 5, 1995.
       45. ``The American people are marching toward more security 
     because there are no Russian missiles pointed at the children 
     of our country for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the American 
     Society of Newspaper Editors, Dallas, Texas, April 7, 1995.
       46.``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, 
     there are no Russian missiles pointed at the children of the 
     United States of America.''--President Clinton, Remarks to 
     California Democratic Party, Sacramento, California, April 
     8, 1995.
       47. ``. . . this is the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age when no Russian missiles are pointed at the 
     children of America. . . .''--President Clinton, Remarks at 
     Luncheon with the Jewish Federation, Beverly Hills, 
     California, April 9, 1995.
       48. ``There are nuclear weapons--large numbers of them 
     now--being destroyed in Russia, weapons from Russian and the 
     states of the former Soviet Union that had them before. And 
     we are destroying weapons. For the first time, there are no 
     Russian nuclear missiles pointed at the United States.''--
     President Clinton, Press Conference, East Room, The White 
     House, April 18, 1995.
       49. ``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, 
     there are no Russian missiles pointed at America's children. 
     And those nuclear weapons are being destroyed every day.''--
     President Clinton, Address to the Iowa State Legislature, 
     State Capitol, Des Moines, April 25, 1995.
       50. ``. . . no Russian missiles pointed at the people of 
     the United States for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Remarks to Students at 
     Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, April 25, 1995.
       51. ``Oh, we knew so clearly when we had the Soviet Union, 
     the Cold War, and the massive nuclear threat. Today, no 
     Soviet Union, no Cold War, and for the first time since the 
     dawn of the Nuclear Age, no Russian missiles are pointed at 
     the children of the United States.''--President Clinton, 
     Remarks at World Jewish Congress Dinner, New York, April 30, 
     1995.
       52. ``. . . for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age there are no Russian missiles pointing at the 
     American people.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the White 
     House Conference on Aging, Washington, D.C., May 3, 1995.
       53. ``Some of you may not know this, but because of the 
     agreement we made last year between the United States and 
     Russia, for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, 
     there are no Russian missiles pointed at the citizens of the 
     United States.''--President Clinton, Speech to AIPAC Policy 
     Conference, Washington, D.C., May 7, 1995.
       54. ``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, 
     no Russian missiles are pointed at our children.''--President 
     Clinton, Remarks at V-E Day Celebration, Fort Myer, Virginia, 
     May 8, 1995.
       55. ``I am very proud to say that for the first time since 
     the dawn of the nuclear age, no Russian missiles are pointed 
     at the people of the United States.''--President Clinton, 
     Remarks at Commencement Ceremony at Michigan State 
     University, East Lansing, Michigan, May 8, 1995.
       56. ``I am proud that for the first time since the dawn of 
     the nuclear age, no Russian missiles are pointed at the 
     children of America. And now that I am here, I might 
     paraphrase what your Foreign Minister told me in Washington 
     last month--I am also proud that no American missiles are 
     pointed at you or me for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the Students of 
     Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation, May 10, 
     1995.
       57. ``. . . for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age, no Russian missiles are pointed at the people of 
     the United States of America.''--President Clinton, Remarks 
     at a Memorial Day ceremony, Arlington, Virginia, May 29, 
     1995.
       58. ``. . . at the end of the Cold War, the first thing we 
     have to do is to finish the work of removing the nuclear 
     threat. In the last two years we can say for the first 
     time that there are no nuclear missiles pointed at the 
     United States. We are destroying parts of our nuclear 
     arsenal and so are the Russians.''--President Clinton, 
     Telephone interview with Colorado Springs Gazette, May 30, 
     1995.
       59. ``We are dramatically reducing the nuclear threat. for 
     the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there are 
     no Russian missiles pointed at the people of the United 
     States.''--President Clinton, Remarks at U.S. Air Force 
     Academy Graduation Ceremony, Colorado Springs, May 31, 1995.
       60. ``I am very proud of the fact that in the last two 
     years, for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, 
     there are no Russian missiles pointed at the people of the 
     United States of America.''--President Clinton, Remarks at 
     the Dartmouth College Commencement, Hanover, New Hampshire, 
     June 11, 1995.
       61. ``One of the things that I am proudest of is that 
     during our administration, for the first time since the dawn 
     of the nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles pointed at 
     the people of the United States. So we're celebrating.''--
     President Clinton, Remarks at Chicago Presidential Gala, 
     Chicago, June 29, 1995.
       62. ``The Cold War is over. That means we don't have to 
     worry about nuclear annihilation. For the first time since 
     the dawn of the nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles 
     pointed at Americans, no American missiles pointed at 
     Russians.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the 1995 Annual 
     Convention of the American Association of Physicians From 
     India, Chicago, June 30, 1995.
       63. ``. . . agreement with Russia that now mean that both 
     our nations no longer target our missiles at each other.''--
     President Clinton, Announcement of Comprehensive Nuclear 
     Weapons Test Ban, Washington, D.C., August 11, 1995.
       64. ``I'm proud of the fact that there are no Russian 
     missiles pointed at this country for the first time since the 
     dawn of the Nuclear Age, since our administration came 
     in.''--President Clinton, Remarks at Clinton-Gore Fundraiser, 
     Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D.C., September 7, 1995.
       65. ``We don't now fear a bomb dropping on us from the 
     Soviet Union. I am proud to say that since I've been 
     president, for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear 
     age there are no Russian missiles pointed at the people of 
     the United States.''--President Clinton, Remarks at the 
     Pennsylvania Presidential Gala, Philadelphia, September 18, 
     1995.
       66. ``I'm proud of the fact that there are no Russian 
     missiles pointed at our kids for the first time since the 
     dawn of the nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Speech at 
     Southern California Presidential Gala, Los Angeles, 
     California, September 21, 1995.
       67. ``. . . there are no Russian missiles pointed at our 
     people . . .''--President Clinton, Interview with the San 
     Diego Union-Tribune, en route to San Diego, California, 
     September 22, 1995.
       68. ``. . . there are no missiles pointed at the people of 
     the United States since the dawn of the nuclear age.''--
     President Clinton, Remarks at 25th Anniversary Dinner of the 
     Congressional Black Caucus, Washington, D.C., September 23, 
     1995.
       69. ``. . . ``for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age there are now no foreign missiles pointed at the 
     people of the United States of America.''--President 
     Clinton, Remarks to the Hispanic Caucus Institute Board 
     and Members, Washington, D.C., September 27, 1995.
       70. ``Russian nuclear missiles are no longer pointed at our 
     citizens and there are no longer American missiles pointed at 
     their citizens.''--President Clinton, Speech to Freedom 
     House, Washington, D.C., October 6, 1995.
       71. ``And America has been gratified to be a part of making 
     peace in the Middle East, progress in Northern Ireland, the 
     cease-fire in Bosnia, making sure that for the first

[[Page H4114]]

     time since the dawn of the nuclear age there aren't any 
     missiles pointed at Americans or their children tonight.''--
     President Clinton, Speech to the Business Council, 
     Williamsburg Inn, Williamsburg, Virginia, October 13, 1995.
       72. ``. . . and I tell you there are no Russian missiles 
     pointed at the people of the United States for the first time 
     since the dawn of the nuclear age because of the things that 
     we've been doing. . . .''--President Clinton, Remarks at 
     Presidential Gala Luncheon, Meridien Hotel, Dallas, Texas, 
     October 16, 1995.
       73. ``There are no Russian missiles pointed at anyone in 
     America for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear 
     age.''--President Clinton, Remarks at Presidential Gala 
     Dinner, Westin Galleria Hotel, Houston, Texas, October 17, 
     1995.
       74. ``. . . America is safer tonight because we didn't give 
     up our leadership, because we are in a situation where we're 
     destroying nuclear missiles more rapidly. And for the first 
     time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there is not a 
     single, solitary nuclear missile pointed at an American child 
     tonight. Not one. Not one. Not a single one.''--President 
     Clinton, Remarks at Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Des 
     Moines, October 20, 1995.
       75. ``The United States has made a real contribution to the 
     march of freedom, democracy and peace, in accelerating the 
     dismantling of our nuclear weapons so that now, for the first 
     time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there's not a single 
     nuclear missile pointed at a single American citizen.''--
     President Clinton, Remarks at Dedication of the National 
     Czech and Slovak Museum, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, October 21, 
     1995.
       76. ``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, 
     there's not a single solitary nuclear missile pointed at the 
     people of the United States of America. And I'm proud of 
     that.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the AFL-CIO 
     Convention, New York, October 23, 1995.
       77. ``We can be very thankful that on this Veterans Day, 
     for their first time since the dawn of the nuclear era, there 
     are no Russian missiles pointed at the children of 
     America.''--President Clinton, Remarks at Wreath-Laying 
     Ceremony, Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, November 11, 1995.
       78. ``For the first time since the dawn of the Nuclear Age, 
     there is not a single nuclear missile pointed at an American 
     child.''--Remarks to the Democratic Leadership Council, 
     Washington, D.C., November 13, 1995.
       79. ``For the very first time since the dawn of the Nuclear 
     Age, there is not a single Russian missile pointed at an 
     American child.''--President Clinton, Remarks in satellite 
     feed to Florida Democratic Party Convention, Little Rock, 
     Arkansas, December 10, 1995.
       80. ``I am proud of the fact there are no Russian missiles 
     pointed at any Americans during this administration for the 
     first time since the end of the Cold War.''--
     President Clinton, Dinner for the National Democratic 
     Club, Capital Hilton Hotel, Washington, January 9, 1996.
       81. ``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, 
     there is not a single, solitary nuclear missile pointed at an 
     American child, and I am proud of that.''--President Clinton, 
     Remarks at Clinton-Gore Luncheon, Opryland Hotel, Nashville, 
     Tennessee, January 12, 1996.
       82. ``I am proud of the fact that, with the leadership of 
     the Vice President, for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age, there is not a single nuclear missile pointed at 
     an American child today.''--President Clinton, To Workers of 
     the Peterbilt Truck Plant, Nashville, January 12, 1996.
       83. ``For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear 
     age--for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age--
     there is not a single Russian missile pointed at America's 
     children.''--President Clinton, State of the Union address, 
     January 23, 1996.
       84. ``. . . for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles pointed at our 
     people.''--President Clinton, Statement on Senate 
     Ratification of the START II Treaty, January 26, 1996.
       85. ``You look at the fact that we now have almost 180 
     nations committed not to get involved in the nuclear arms 
     race, and the fact that the Russians and others have 
     detargeted their nuclear missiles so that now there are no 
     more nuclear missiles pointed at any American homes for the 
     first time since the dawn of the nuclear age.''--President 
     Clinton, Remarks to the People of the Salem Area, Salem, New 
     Hampshire, February 2, 1996.
       86. ``. . . for the first time in the last two-and-a-half 
     years, for the first time since the dawn of the Nuclear Age, 
     there is not a single nuclear missile pointed at an American 
     city, an American family, an American child. That is not 
     being done any more.''--President Clinton, Remarks to 
     Students, Parents and Teachers of the Concord Schools 
     Community, Concord, New Hampshire, February 2, 1996.
       87. ``. . . people see that there are no Russian missiles 
     pointed at our children for the first time since the dawn of 
     the nuclear age. . . .''--President Clinton, Remarks at 
     Louisiana Economic Development Brunch, Washington, D.C., 
     February 9, 1996.
       88. ``I'm grateful that there are no nuclear missiles 
     pointed at the United States any more.''--President Clinton, 
     Remarks to the Iowa City Community, Iowa, February 10, 1996.
       89. ``. . . let's look at the march of the world toward 
     peace after the Cold War. There are no nuclear missiles 
     pointed at the people of the United States.''--President 
     Clinton, Remarks to the People of Des Moines, February 11, 
     1996.
       90. ``There are no more nuclear missiles pointed at any 
     children in the United States. I'm proud of that.''--
     President Clinton, Remarks at Presidential Gala, Sheraton New 
     York, New York City, February 15, 1996.
       91. ``I asked you to give me a chance to try to give 
     America a more secure future and a more peaceful, more 
     democratic world. And the fact that there are not nuclear 
     missiles pointed at any American children for the first time 
     since the dawn of the nuclear age is evidence of that 
     commitment.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the People of 
     Southeast New Hampshire, Rochester, New Hampshire, February 
     17, 1996.
       92. ``We won the Cold War, and there are no missiles 
     pointed at the United States or any of its 
     people tonight.''--President Clinton, Speech to the people 
     of Manchester, New Hampshire, February 17, 1996.
       93. ``More than anything else I am grateful that now there 
     is not a single nuclear weapon pointed at any American 
     citizen.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the Community in 
     Keene, New Hampshire, February 17, 1996.
       94. ``We won the Cold War. There are no missiles pointed at 
     America's children.''--President Clinton, Telephone speech to 
     the National Emergency Management Association, February 26, 
     1996.
       95. ``. . . I am proud of the fact that there are no 
     Russian missiles pointed at the United States.''--President 
     Clinton, Speech at Democratic Congressional Campaign 
     Committee Dinner, St. Regis Hotel, New York City, March 11, 
     1996.
       96. ``There's not a single nuclear warhead pointed at an 
     American citizen today, for the first time since the dawn of 
     the nuclear age, and I am proud of that.''--President 
     Clinton, Remarks at Dedication Ceremony of the New Nashville 
     Wharf, Port of New Orleans, March 18, 1996.
       97. ``Today, there are no Russian missiles pointed at our 
     cities and citizens.''--President Clinton, Address to Members 
     of the University of Central Oklahoma Community, April 5, 
     1996.
       98. ``Because of my agreement with President Yeltsin, for 
     the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, no Russian 
     missiles are targeted at United States cities.''--President 
     Clinton, News Conference in Moscow, Russia, April 20, 1996.
       99. ``. . . Russian and American missiles are not pointed 
     at each other's cities or citizens.''--President Clinton, 
     News Conference with Russian President Boris Yeltsin, Moscow, 
     Russia, April 21, 1996.
       100. ``. . . for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age there is not a single, solitary nuclear missile 
     pointed at an American child tonight. And I am proud of that 
     and you should be proud of that.''--President Clinton, 
     Remarks to a Democratic Reception at the Franklin Institute, 
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 26, 1996.
       101. ``There are no nuclear missiles pointed at America's 
     children for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear 
     age.''--President Clinton, Speech to the Democratic National 
     Dinner, Coral Gables, Florida, April 29, 1996.
       102. ``. . . there are no Russian missiles pointed at our 
     cities or our citizens.''--President Clinton, Commencement 
     address to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, May 22, 1996.
       103. ``I have made reducing the nuclear threat one of my 
     highest priorities. As a result, for the first time since the 
     dawn of the nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles 
     pointed at our people.''--President Clinton, Statement on the 
     Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, June 28, 1996.
       104. ``I'm proud of the fact that there are no nuclear 
     missiles pointed at the United States for the first time 
     since the dawn of the nuclear age.''--President Clinton, 
     Speech to the Northern California Democratic National 
     Committee Gala, San Francisco, July 23, 1996.
       105. ``Today not a single Russian missile is pointed at our 
     citizens or cities.''--President Clinton, Speech at the 
     George Washington University, Washington, D.C., August 
     5, 1996.
       106. ``If the test is, no nuclear missiles pointed at the 
     American people for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age, we're better off.''--President Clinton, Speech 
     to the Saxophone Club, Armand Hammer Museum of Art, Santa 
     Monica, California, August 9, 1996.
       107. ``We've got a more peaceful world where there are no 
     nuclear missiles pointed at the people of the United States 
     since the dawn of the nuclear age.''--President Clinton, 
     Remarks to the Citizens of Ashland, Kentucky, August 25, 
     1996.
       108. ``. . . for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age, on this night, this beautiful night, there is 
     not a single nuclear missile pointed at a child in the United 
     States of America.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the 
     Citizens of Toledo, Ohio, August 26, 1996.
       109. ``I am proud to say that tonight there is not a single 
     Russian nuclear missile pointed at an American child.''--
     President Clinton, Speech accepting his nomination to run for 
     a second term, Democratic National Committee Convention, 
     Chicago, August 29, 1996.
       110. ``We finally succeed in removing most of the nuclear 
     weapons from any place within the old Soviet Union. There are 
     no nuclear missiles pointed at the children of the United 
     States tonight for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the Citizens of 
     St. Louis, Missouri, September 10, 1996.

[[Page H4115]]

       111. ``. . . today no Russian missiles are pointed at our 
     cities or our citizens.''--President Clinton, Remarks to 
     reporters upon departure from Kansas City International 
     Airport, September 10, 1996.
       112. ``. . . for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age in the last four years, there's not a single 
     nuclear missile pointed at the children of America.''--
     President Clinton, Speech to the Community of the Sun City 
     Area, Sun City, Arizona, September 11, 1996.
       113. ``I'm proud of the fact that there are no nuclear 
     missiles pointed at America's children since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age. . . .''--President Clinton, Speech to the Rancho 
     Cucamonga Community, Rancho Cucamonga, California, September 
     12, 1996.
       114. ``Today, there are no Russian missiles pointed at 
     America, and no American missiles pointed at Russia.''--
     President Clinton, Speech to the 51st General Assembly of the 
     United Nations, New York, September 24, 1996.
       115. ``There are no Russian missiles pointed at the 
     children of the United States.''--President Clinton, Remarks 
     to the Citizens of Freehold, New Jersey, September 24, 1996.
       116. ``There are no Russian missiles pointed at America for 
     the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age.''--
     President Clinton, Speech to the Citizens of Fort Worth, 
     Texas, September 27, 1996.
       117. ``There are no nuclear missiles pointed at the 
     children of the United States tonight and have not been in 
     our administration for the first time since the dawn of the 
     nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Debate with Senator Bob 
     Dole, Hartford Connecticut, October 6, 1996.
       118. ``. . . we have reduced the nuclear danger to 
     Americans, and today there are no Russian nuclear missiles 
     targeted at our children.''--President Clinton, Response to 
     Readers' Questions, USA Today, October 8, 1996.
       119. ``Today, no Russian missiles are pointed at America's 
     children.''--President Clinton, Remarks on Fox Network's Free 
     Campaign Air Time, October 12, 1996.
       120. ``. . . today not a single Russian missile targets 
     America. We are cutting our nuclear arsenals by two-
     thirds.''--President Clinton, Speech to the People of the 
     Detroit Area, Detroit, Michigan, October 22, 1996.
       121. ``. . . today, as we stand here in Macon, Georgia, 
     there are no Russian missiles targeted at the United States 
     of America.''--President Clinton, Speech to the People of the 
     Macon Area, Macon, Georgia, October 25, 1996.
       122. ``. . . there are no Russian missiles targeted at the 
     young people of the United States of America.''--President 
     Clinton, Speech to the People of the Atlanta Area, Atlanta, 
     Georgia, October 25, 1996.
       123. ``You just think--just think about this world we're 
     moving into--the Cold War in the background, no Russian 
     missiles pointed at the children of the United States for the 
     first time since the dawn of the nuclear age.''--President 
     Clinton, Speech to the People of the Chicago Area, Chicago, 
     Illinois, October 28, 1996.
       124. ``But we are standing up for peace and freedom and 
     there's not a single Russian missile pointed at an American 
     child tonight in part because of what we're doing.''--
     President Clinton, Speech to the People of the Denver Area, 
     Denver, Colorado, October 30, 1996.
       125. ``America is stronger today than it was four years 
     ago. No Russian missiles are pointed at our children today, 
     for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, and 
     we're moving in the right direction there.''--President 
     Clinton, Speech to the People of the Las Vegas Area, Las 
     Vegas, Nevada, October 31, 1996.
       126. ``I know that I've been criticized for some of the 
     things that I've tried to do, but I know that there are no 
     Russian missiles pointed at the children of America for the 
     first time since the dawn of the cold war.''--President 
     Clinton, Remarks at Santa Barbara City College, Santa 
     Barbara, California, November 1, 1996.
       127. ``Today there's not a single Russian nuclear missile 
     pointed at an American child.''--President Clinton, Remarks 
     on Dateline NBC's ``Presidential Face-Off,'' November 1, 
     1996.
       128. ``If I were a Republican president--after all the 
     rhetoric they've used--with . . . no Russian missiles pointed 
     at our kids, by the way; and a stronger America with a 
     stronger military, they'd be saying it's morning in 
     America.''--President Clinton, Remarks to the Citizens of San 
     Antonio, Texas, November 2, 1996.
       129. ``. . . there are no Russian missiles pointed at any 
     American children tonight for the first time since the dawn 
     of the nuclear age.''--President Clinton, Speech to the 
     People of the Springfield Area, Springfield, Massachusetts, 
     November 3, 1996.
       130. ``. . . we must move strongly against new threats to 
     our security. . . . With Russia, we dramatically cut nuclear 
     arsenals and we stopped targeting each other's citizens.''--
     President Clinton, State of the Union Address, February 4, 
     1997.
       Compiled by the American Foreign Policy Council, 1521 16th 
     Street NW, Washington, DC 20036 USA.
                                                                    ____

       ``Today there's not a single Russian nuclear missile 
     pointed at an American child.''--President Clinton, Remarks 
     by President Clinton on Dateline NBC's ``Presidential Face-
     Off'', November 1, 1996
       ``If I were a Republican President--after all the rhetoric 
     they've used--with . . . no Russian missiles pointed at our 
     kids, by the way; and a stronger America with a stronger 
     military, they'd be saying it's morning in America.''--
     President Clinton, Remarks to the Citizens of San Antonio, 
     Texas, November 2, 1996


                         vice president al gore

       ``Less than three weeks ago, for the first time in almost 
     fifty years, nuclear missiles were no longer targeted on 
     American cities.''--Vice President Gore, Commencement Speech 
     at Harvard University, June 9, 1994
       ``We've seen . . . the taking of Russian missiles off alert 
     so that for the first time in my lifetime no Russian missiles 
     are targeted on American soil.''--Vice President Gore, 
     Interview with Tim Russert on ``Meet the Press'', September 
     4, 1994
       ``Today, Russian missiles are no longer targeted at 
     America's cities or homes.''--Vice President Gore, Remarks at 
     U.S. Military Academy at West Point, October 17, 1995
       ``And our strength at home has led to renewed respect 
     abroad: nuclear missiles no longer pointed at our cities . . 
     .''--Vice President Gore, Speech to the Democratic National 
     Convention, Chicago, Illinois, August 28, 1996


            (former) national security advisor anthony lake

       ``Our rhetoric must not outpace reality. When it does, we 
     risk creating a climate of disillusion like the one that 
     descended upon us in the 1920s . . . As a result of our 
     engagement Russian missiles no longer target American cities 
     or citizens.''--Anthony Lake, Remarks in ``Woodrow Wilson 
     Speech'', as quoted in Department of State Dispatch, December 
     5, 1994
       ``. . . without that relationship, the Presidents, Clinton 
     and Yeltsin, would not have been able to negotiate the 
     agreement which now results in there not being American 
     and Russian missiles targeted at each other.''--Anthony 
     Lake, Statements at White House Press Briefing, May 11, 
     1995
       ``Today, American cities and American citizens no longer 
     live under direct targeting of Russian missiles.''--Anthony 
     Lake, Speech at George Washington University, March 8, 1996
       ``Today, because of our steady engagement America's cities 
     and America's families are no longer targeted by Russian 
     missiles.''--Anthony Lake, Speech to the U.S./Russia Business 
     Council, Washington, DC, April 1, 1996
       ``Today, because of our engagement with Russia and the new 
     independent states, America's cities and families are no 
     longer targeted by Russia's missiles.''--Anthony Lake, 
     Remarks at Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, April 25, 
     1996
       ``Because of our steady engagement with Russia and the new 
     independent states, no Russian missiles are targeted at 
     America's cities or citizens.''--Anthony Lake, Speech to the 
     Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, May 24, 1996
       ``Then: Russia's missiles were targeted at American cities 
     and citizens; now: their detargeting has eliminated the risk 
     to us of an accidental launch.''--Anthony Lake, Speech at the 
     Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University, 
     Washington, DC, October 7, 1996


             (former) secretary of state warren christopher

       ``Russian missiles are no longer targeted on us.''--Warren 
     Christopher, Speech on Year End Review of U.S. Foreign Policy 
     as quoted in Department of State Dispatch, January 2, 1995
       ``. . . we need to remember the tremendous advantage there 
     is in no longer having Russian or Soviet missiles targeted on 
     the United States.''--Warren Christopher, Interview with 
     Associated Press, May 5, 1995
       ``Our cooperation has produced a number of things for the 
     american people--most dramatically, the reduction in our 
     nuclear arsenals and the absence of any nuclear 
     missiles being targeted at the United States.''--Warren 
     Christopher, Remarks with Russian Foreign Minister 
     Primakov, Helsinki, Finland, February 10, 1996
       ``Today, Russian missiles are no longer targeted on our 
     cities.''--Warren Christopher, Statement to the House 
     International Relations Committee, July 31, 1996


              (Former) Secretary of Defense William Perry

       ``Russia's nuclear missiles are no longer aimed at us, nor 
     are our missiles targeted on them''--William Perry, 
     Commentary Piece in Los Angeles Times, May 10, 1995


             Deputy National Security Advisor Samuel Berger

       ``Because of President Clinton's agreement with President 
     Yeltsin, Russian missiles no longer target American 
     cities.''--Samuel Berger, Remarks at the Wilson Center, June 
     18, 1996


                    Press Secretary Michael McCurry

       ``. . . we don't have Russian strategic intercontinental 
     missiles aimed at the United States any more.''--Michael 
     McCurry, Remarks at Press Briefing, March 10, 1995
       Secretary of State Madeline Albright--Madeline Albright, 
     Statements Before House International Relations Committee, 
     ??? February 12, 1996
                                                                    ____

       Ed Bradley: Is there verification on both sides?
       General Sergeyev: No, we don't have these kind of systems 
     of verification or control. For the first time, we do it on 
     total confidence to one another.

[[Page H4116]]

       Ed Bradley: So, we take your word, you take our word?
       General Sergeyev: Yes.
       Ed Bradley: This is a Russian topal being test fired, able 
     to reach its old U.S. targets in just 30 minutes. We're told 
     that they're no longer aimed at America, but how much comfort 
     can we take from that?
       How long will it take to re-target?
       General Sergeyev: The same period of time it will take the 
     Americans to do it. Same time.
       Ed Bradley: Minutes? Hours?
       ``It depends on the missile,'' he told us, but for most, 
     only a matter of minutes.
       General Sergeyev: Yes, we can return it all back to the way 
     it was.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, 
and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 169, it is now in order to 
consider the amendment printed in section 8(e) of House Resolution 169.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 326, after line 
     6), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1032. ASSIGNMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL TO 
                   ASSIST IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE 
                   AND CUSTOMS SERVICE.

       (a) Assignment Authority of Secretary of Defense.--Chapter 
     18 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after section 374 the following new section:

     Sec. 374a. Assignment of personnel to assist border patrol 
       and control

       ``(a) Assignment Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may 
     assign up to 10,000 Department of Defense personnel at any 
     one time to assist--
       ``(1) the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 
     preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and 
     illegal aliens into the United States; and
       ``(2) the United States Customs Service in the inspection 
     of cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at points of entry into the 
     United States.
       ``(b) Request for Assignment.--The assignment of Department 
     of Defense personnel under subsection (a) may only occur--
       ``(1) at the request of the Attorney General, in the case 
     of an assignment to the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service; and
       ``(2) at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     the case of an assignment to the United States Customs 
     Service.''.
       ``(c) Reimbursement Requirement.--Section 377 of this title 
     shall apply in the case of Department of Defense personnel 
     assigned under subsection (a).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 374 the following new item:

``374a. Assignment of personnel to assist border patrol and control.''.

       Sec. 9. Notwithstanding section 2(e) of this resolution, 
     the additional period of general debate on the subject of 
     United States forces in Bosnia shall precede the offering of 
     amendments numbered 8 and 9 in part 1 of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules rather than the amendments numbered 1 and 
     2 in part 1 of the report.

  The Chairman. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] seek the 5 minutes 
in opposition?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California, [Mr. Duncan Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. We have had more shootings on the southwest 
border in the last several weeks. In fact, we had two attempted 
shootings yesterday from across the border. One border patrolman has 
been hit so far. We have had more violence there and more gunfire 
exchanged than we have had in Bosnia in the same period of time.
  What this allows us to do is, on request of the Attorney General, in 
the case where you have a national security problem for the Attorney 
General to request up to 10,000 military personnel at the southwest 
border. I think it is prudent. It requires a request of the Attorney 
General. Obviously, it is at the discretion of the Commander in Chief.
  I strongly support the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  (Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank my esteemed colleague, the gentleman 
from California, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Traficant amendment 
this morning. Mr. Chairman, if the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio 
is adopted, the Department of Defense will be allowed to send 10,000 
troops to our southern border. With more than 26 years of experience in 
the U.S. Border Patrol, I can tell the Members that this is a very, 
very bad idea.
  Exactly 1 month ago today a young 18-year-old boy was shot and killed 
by a Marine assisting the Border Patrol in Redford, TX. Ezequiel 
Hernandez is the first American killed by troops on U.S. soil since 
1970, in the Kent State incident. Unfortunately, we cannot do anything 
to bring him back, but we can and we should do everything we can to 
keep this from happening again.
  We already have almost 7,000 Border Patrol agents patrolling our 
Nation's border. Congress, this Congress, has authorized an additional 
1,000 agents every year until the year 2001. What we need to do is make 
sure that these men and women are professional, bilingual, well-trained 
law enforcement officers, properly trained to deal with situations and 
problems along our border.
  Their mission is dramatically different from the mission of the U.S. 
military. It does not make any sense to me or any of my former 
colleagues in the U.S. Border Patrol to put 10,000 troops on the 
southern border. By putting armed troops on our border, we will be 
forced to deal with a new set of problems: Problems of jurisdiction, 
problems of authority, and problems of responsibility and personal 
liability for those troops.
  Mr. Chairman, this body should focus its time and energy on giving 
the Border Patrol the resources they need, instead of jeopardizing our 
troops and civilians alike. The cost of doing this is, furthermore, 
outrageous. According to our own Department of Defense, if this 
amendment is adopted, it will cost the U.S. taxpayers $650 million a 
year to deploy 10,000 troops to our southern border. The military 
already spends more than $800 million per year assisting law 
enforcement with drug interdiction and border security, mostly through 
support and high-tech equipment.
  For example, the U.S. Air Force provides AWACs aircraft to monitor 
the southwest border. Some of these missions are dedicated solely to 
detecting drug traffickers. Last year, the AWACs provided information 
that led up to a seizure of 945 million dollars worth of cocaine. That 
is about 35 percent of the cocaine intercepted into the United States.
  This issue that we are talking about here with the Traficant 
amendment is dramatically different. We are talking about putting 
troops to patrol our border, and jeopardizing citizens in the districts 
such as mine that I represent along the border with Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, I think, finally, that since the end of the cold war 
the military's mission deployments have increased by about 300 percent. 
We are doing this with a substantially reduced number of soldiers. We 
cannot and should not be able to afford to pull 10,000 men and women 
away from other

[[Page H4117]]

missions, and further adding to the aggravation and pain of family 
separation, to help the efforts of the U.S. Border Patrol that is 
already provided for by this Congress.

                              {time}  1300

  I strongly urge my colleagues to remember that I have 26\1/2\ years 
of experience along our border fighting drug trafficking and illegal 
immigration. I think this is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time.
  The Attorney General does not support this amendment. The Secretary 
of the Treasury does not support this amendment. The Commissioner of 
INS does not support this amendment, and neither do the colleagues that 
I worked with for 26\1/2\ years.
  I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if you have any influence, please beam 
this gentleman up.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak directly to the 
gentleman from Texas, because I support 99.9 percent of his position.
  I have fought against military on the border. If they get to anywhere 
close to what your fears are, the perception, which I do not think is a 
reality, of this amendment, I will stand there toe to toe with you in 
my word to fight against exactly your fears.
  This amendment does not do that, in my opinion. The gentleman is one 
of, if not one of, I think the most respected expert on border patrol 
issues. I would say that up front. But we do have a lot of different 
agencies working with us. I would oppose a marine with a rifle that 
does not know the difference between alto and stop. My whole opinion 
is, we need more border patrol that are trained to help civil rights 
and do those kinds of things. But I do believe in the secondary 
missions and in the cases where not that we are saying put 10,000, I 
would oppose that now today, but where we need to protect our people 
from being fired at, at the Government, the people that are opposing, 
they have the right to say that, that to protect our border patrol, I 
would support it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Let me point out again, Mr. Chairman, this does not mandate that 
these resources be put at the border. It only allows them to be put at 
the border if the administration determines it needs to be done.
  Let me tell my colleagues, as someone who lives within a quarter mile 
of the border, my children and my wife are in that neighborhood today. 
It is quite unfair and quite inappropriate for us to say that our U.S. 
capabilities will defend the neighborhoods of every nation in the 
world, but we will not defend the neighborhoods of south San Diego.
  Mr. Chairman, I have here the record of 251 Members of Congress who 
voted that Mexico is not doing enough on drug interdiction; 250 Members 
of Congress who pointed fingers at Mexico and said they need to do 
more.
  Mr. Chairman, Mexico has put troops at the border because that is 
what it takes to stop the drug traffic. All this amendment says, if the 
President feels that it needs to be done, he is authorized to do that. 
As somebody who is at the border every weekend, let me point out it is 
getting more violent. American agents are being shot from a foreign 
country. We are getting people killed along the border today. All this 
does is prepare the way that, if the administration sees a crisis, that 
crisis can be addressed with American resources.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment does not mandate troops on 
the border. It is only an option. Those troops, if they go to the 
border, cannot make an arrest. They must only detain.
  I appreciate the fine gentleman who was in the border patrol. But 
poor illegal immigrants coming from Central America are not bribing 
Customs, and they are not bribing the border patrol. I am talking about 
narcoterrorists, Congress. You talk about a drug war. We have got kids 
overdosing on the nod in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Youngstown. 
When are we going to fight? Enough is enough. They do not go to the 
border unless there is an emergency. And our President said, we need 
25,000 more border patrol agents to secure our border. We are paying 
money to secure the borders in Bosnia. We are paying money to secure 
the borders all around the world, and we are going to hell literally.
  I am tired of all the ethnic comments being made here. I want to help 
every one of those people in Central America. Those who can come here 
legally, come in. But do not come in illegally. But that is not my 
focus.
  We are not going to stop these big narcotic kingpins with the program 
we have been operating. My colleagues know it and I know it. Now we 
have a chance for the debate. This amendment came up rather quickly, 
before Members could have a chance to really study this baby. I want 
their vote.
  If they stand for stomping out narcotics, cocaine, heroin in this 
country, then stand up today. I hear all this big mouth rhetoric. Stand 
up today. This is not about the border patrol; it is not about Central 
Americans. This is about our national security. And dammit, if we are 
not going to act here today, there will be no opportunity to act.
  I would say one last thing about cost: What do Members think 25,000 
border patrol are going to cost? We have got our troops cashing checks 
in Tokyo, going to dinner in Frankfurt. We are overrun with narcotics 
here. Enough is enough.
  I am asking for an aye vote, and I am asking for those leaders who 
may feel disposed, because of the White House's position, to stand tall 
today. If it was up to the White House, who the hell knows what would 
be going on.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, in the brief time 
that I have got left, that this is not an emotional argument. This is 
an argument that needs rationality.
  This is an argument where we need to vote against this amendment 
because those very people that are enforcing our laws on our southern 
border are not in favor of this amendment. We do not need it. We do not 
want it. We should not tolerate this kind of rhetoric on the floor of 
Congress.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] 
will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order:
  Part 1 amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Luther]; part 2 amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Hefley]; part 2 amendment No. 41 offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon]; and the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Luther.

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145, 
noes 253, not voting 36, as follows:

[[Page H4118]]

                             [Roll No. 221]

                               AYES--145

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Coble
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Goodlatte
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stabenow
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--253

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Ackerman
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bliley
     Brown (CA)
     Buyer
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coburn
     Cooksey
     DeGette
     Deutsch
     Doolittle
     Ehlers
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Johnson, Sam
     Largent
     Lipinski
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     Miller (CA)
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Schiff
     Stark
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Torres
     Wise
     Yates

                              {time}  1327

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Rahall for, with Mr. Deutsch against.
       Mr. Stark for, with Mr. McIntosh against.

  Messrs. CRANE, METCALF, MILLER of Florida, and NEAL of Massachusetts 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. CARSON, Messrs. PAYNE, RUSH and HILLIARD, and Mrs. KELLY, changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, 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 each amendment on which the Chair 
has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Hefley

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 248, 
noes 146, not voting 40, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 222]

                               AYES--248

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--146

     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman

[[Page H4119]]


     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Bunning
     Callahan
     Collins
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Strickland
     Taylor (MS)
     Tierney
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--40

     Ackerman
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Brown (CA)
     Buyer
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coburn
     Cooksey
     DeGette
     Deutsch
     Doolittle
     Ehlers
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Goss
     Johnson, Sam
     Largent
     Lipinski
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     Miller (CA)
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Schiff
     Stark
     Stokes
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Torres
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Wise
     Yates

                              {time}  1335

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. McIntosh for, with Mr. Stark against.
       Ms. DeGette for, Mr. Deutsch against.

  Mr. PALLONE and Mrs. LOWEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SHAYS and Ms. HARMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


         Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 290, 
noes 100, not voting 44, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 223]

                               AYES--290

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--100

     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Lampson
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Snyder
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--44

     Ackerman
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coburn
     Cooksey
     DeGette
     Deutsch
     Doolittle
     Ehlers
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Goss
     Johnson, Sam
     Largent
     Lipinski
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     Miller (CA)
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Sandlin
     Schiff
     Stark
     Stokes
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Wise
     Yates

                              {time}  1342

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. McIntosh for, with Mr. Stark against.

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


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 223, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 223, the Weldon 
amendment, I would like for the Record to reflect that I was in the 
House, in the Chamber available to vote; I signaled the Chair to vote. 
As I approached, the vote was closed despite my signaling.

[[Page H4120]]

  I want the Record to reflect that I would have voted ``aye.'' I was 
available to vote, in the Chamber.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 269, 
noes 119, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 45, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 224]

                               AYES--269

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--119

     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stump
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--45

     Ackerman
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Canady
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coburn
     Cooksey
     DeGette
     Deutsch
     Doolittle
     Ehlers
     Ewing
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Goss
     Johnson, Sam
     Largent
     Lipinski
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     Miller (CA)
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Schiff
     Stark
     Stokes
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Torres
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Wise
     Yates

                              {time}  1351

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. McIntosh for, with Mr. Stark against.

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I was not present to record 
votes on rollcalls No. 222, 223, and 224. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 222, the Hefley amendment, ``aye'' on 
rollcall 223, the Weldon amendment, and ``aye'' on rollcall 224, the 
Traficant amendment.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained today during 
rollcall vote Nos. 220, 223, and 224. Had I been present I would have 
voted ``nay'' on each of these votes.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to speak out of order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me just announce on behalf of the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] what his intent is for the 
schedule for debate of amendments next week with respect to the rest of 
the National Security bill.
  On Monday afternoon, after doing suspensions and any other necessary 
business, it is his desire to continue with the consideration of 
amendments to H.R. 1119; and it is further his intent to have the 
following amendments debated during Monday afternoon with the votes 
rolled until after 5 p.m. Monday afternoon.
  That is the Frank amendment on NATO expansion, amendment No. 10 
offered by Mr. Gilman on POW-MIA issues, amendment No. 11 offered by 
Mr. Buyer and Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island on Persian Gulf illness, and 
possibly an en bloc package of amendments from part 2 of the rule that 
have been worked out and are acceptable to the committee.
  Then, after voting, around the 5 p.m. time frame, it is further his 
intent to resume the consideration of amendments from part 1 of the 
rule as late into Monday evening as the schedule will permit; and it is 
his hope to finish consideration of amendments on Monday evening, and 
that would mean considering the following amendments on Monday evening 
after the 5 p.m. votes. That is amendment No. 7, offered by the 
gentleman from California, the ranking member, Mr. Dellums, on the B-2 
bomber; amendment No. 8, offered by Mr. Buyer; and No. 9, offered by 
Mr. Hilleary, on Bosnia. And under the rule these 20-minute amendments 
would be preceded by 1 hour of general debate, and the amendment made 
in order yesterday in the amended rule offered by Mr. Everett on depot 
policy and any remaining part 2 amendments, either in an en bloc 
package or consideration individually, as 10-minute amendments under 
the rule.
  So it is his desire to dispose of all amendments on Monday evening so 
that we can finish consideration of the bill sometime in the Tuesday 
morning timeframe.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I am very sorry that most of our colleagues have probably left for

[[Page H4121]]

their weekend schedules in their various districts, but I must make 
this observation, that I cannot remember a Monday night in this session 
that we have worked, and if we have, not a bill of this extraordinary 
magnitude.
  The gentleman has laid out a number of significant and important, 
often contentious, difficult issues that we must deal with. This 
gentleman will be here prepared to do a job; that is what I have to do. 
But I want to say on behalf of myself and other Members that the fact 
that we are now suddenly finding ourselves in such a constrained 
schedule, that we have to push all of these issues into a Monday night 
I think flies in the face of what I think is reasonableness.
  Now, I understand that there may be some time left over on Tuesday, 
but we now rush to judgment on a whole range of issues. I just want to 
make the observation, Mr. Chairman, and to my colleague, that I am not 
comfortable with the way this is proceeding. I have said at the outset, 
I do not like the rush to judgment on a $263 billion budget, and now we 
are constrained into one day. When we went before the Committee on 
Rules, they said Thursday, Friday, Monday and Tuesday, try to finish 
this bill up on Tuesday. Now maybe there is an hour or two on Tuesday. 
We are forced to deal with a myriad of incredible issues.
  Now, the reality is that 300 or 400 of our colleagues are already 
gone, heading home; many of them are going to fly back in here to be 
back on the floor at 5 o'clock. They are not going to know what we are 
debating. Many of them will be tired from the weekend and tired from 
their flights, and we are going to get into issues like the B-2 bomber, 
like Bosnia, like the whole range of critical questions that are very 
contentious and important here.
  I think we ought to be at our best when we are dealing with these 
issues, not when we are tired and not when we are making votes based on 
our ignorance by not being here. I just want to make that statement. I 
am not running the show here, those folks are, but I just want my 
colleagues to know from this side of the aisle that I am very 
uncomfortable with the way this process is going. It is the first 
Monday that we are dealing with this level of significance, and I would 
like for my colleague to at least respond in some manner to that 
concern.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums]. Let me just say personally, as the gentleman who has engaged 
the gentleman in these major arms control issues and the B-2 bomber 
issue for a number of years, I too look forward to a robust debate on 
the B-2 bomber, and I think it is our duty to force as many colleagues 
as we can to listen to us one more time on that issue, and I think we 
will be able to do that.
  I understand that the reason that we are trying to keep this thing 
out of Tuesday's schedule as much as possible, that the chairman has 
that desire; it is because we have got another issue coming up that is 
supposed to be engaged on Tuesday. So we may be bumping up against the 
schedule.
  I want to assure my colleague that it is my desire to have a robust 
debate, especially on the B-2 issue, and I know the depot issue is one 
that has a lot of claimants and will have a great deal of debate 
offered, and the chairman of the full committee is a very gracious 
individual, and I am sure if the gentleman talks to him, if we can get 
an extra hour or two on Tuesday morning from the leadership and maybe 
push that other issue up a little bit, we can have a more robust debate 
on B-2, Bosnia and the depot issue.
  So the gentleman has got my assurance that I will sit with him and 
the chairman, and my desire is to have as big a debate and as full a 
debate as possible.
  So that is what I would offer to the gentleman, but I understand that 
the chairman of the full committee had the problem of bumping up 
against the next bill, and that is why he is trying to get our 
amendments finished and get the bill finished by Tuesday morning.
  Mr. DELLUMS. If the gentleman will yield, I appreciate his response. 
I understand that this committee is operating within the framework of a 
much larger structure. I just felt compelled to make that observation. 
I think that disadvantages a number of Members on both sides of the 
aisle, but that is just my observation, and leadership going to have to 
make the judgment that they choose to make. Unfortunately, we will of 
to live with them, but I do not think that they are good judgments.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums].
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  1400

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Calvert] having assumed the chair, Mr. Young of Florida, Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1119) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________