[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5932-H5983]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 198 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2266.

                              {time}  1049


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2266) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Camp in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. We are pleased to bring before the committee today what I 
think is an outstanding bipartisan national defense appropriations 
bill. The security of our Nation and the protection of our troops and 
those who serve in uniform should be nonpolitical. It should be 
bipartisan. This bill reflects that.
  This is a bipartisan bill. It was put together with the strong 
cooperation of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the 
ranking member on the subcommittee, and all of the members of the 
subcommittee and the staff who worked with us. We have presented a bill 
that is reflective of the needs of the military, reflective of the 
various threats that exist and potential threats that exist in the 
world, and it has been done in a very bipartisan fashion.
  This bill today, Mr. Chairman, is within the constraints and the 
agreements on the part of the President, on the part of the House, and 
on the part of the Senate as we dealt with our budget agreement.
  We are basically in agreement with the authorizing bills as passed by 
the House, from the Committee on National Security and also the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, both of which committees we 
appropriate for their authorization.
  This bill includes some $4.4 billion over the request of the 
President but, as I said, with the budget agreement that he has agreed 
to, that obviously is acceptable. This bill goes directly to the heart 
of our national security requirements. About 70 percent of the money 
appropriated in this bill goes for the personnel and the operations and 
maintenance of the force, salaries, allowances, housing, medical care, 
et cetera, et cetera. We have increased the medical allowances because 
there was a shortfall. The administration recognized that and asked for 
an increase; we provided that.
  We have made some very specific recommendations and changes in the 
bureaucracy in the Pentagon, and as we work toward making the Pentagon 
a triangle, we have been able to reduce funding for civilian 
consultants, funding for the civilian bureaucracy, and have reduced 
funding for military bureaucracy where it was duplicative and, in the 
opinion of the members of the subcommittee, was really not necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, all in all, we bring to this House an excellent bill. I 
think we can move it through here quickly. The authorizing bill from 
the Committee on National Security received a very large vote. The 
authorizing bill for Intelligence was passed by this House with a voice 
vote, and we expect that we should be able to move this bill quickly as 
well, because it pretty much tracks the contents of those two 
authorizing bills.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following tabular material:

[[Page H5933]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY97.000



[[Page H5934]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY97.001



[[Page H5935]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY97.002



[[Page H5936]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill. We did not have a vote in 
subcommittee, a few votes in full committee, but the results of this 
bill are very closely aligned to the authorization bill which also, as 
I understand it, was a bipartisan bill, as it should be. Our defense of 
this Nation should be bipartisan.
  A couple of things that we concentrated on. Quality of life is always 
something that we work on, trying to make sure that the medical care of 
the dependents of the families is taken care of. We try to stress extra 
things that the services have not thought of or do not think they have 
enough money for.
  One of the things we have stressed is chemical and biological attack 
and the fact that we are vulnerable to that in this Nation and we need 
to set up a system. We have suggested to the Defense Department they 
use the National Guard for this system, so that if anything like that 
were to happen, a terrorist attack using either of these weapons, the 
National Guard would be prepared to respond to that. Right now we have 
responses by local government, we have responses by one team of 
Marines, but it is not nearly enough to really respond to the ultimate 
problem.
  Overall, we feel we do not have enough money for defense. Procurement 
has come down from $120 to $40 billion and it has been a very, very 
delicate balance to make sure we modernize the forces, we keep the 
readiness up, we increase the O&M. The Senate has taken money out of 
O&M. We have increased O&M. We hope we will be able to convince them 
that readiness is absolutely essential. The quality of our forces is 
the best I have ever seen. We continue to visit them. But when we start 
cutting back, when we start having a heavy tempo of operations as we 
do, we have to get the money from someplace.
  The Bosnia operation has hurt us as far as the amount of money goes 
for modernization. It has also hurt us in some of the problems we have 
had in the recruit depots. At the recruit depots, at some of them they 
have less training time, they have less supervisors, they have less 
people to do the training. Consequently, we are going to run into a 
substantial problem. We hope that the services have changed that. We 
hope that the Army in particular has addressed that and that in the end 
this problem will go away.
  Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman in saying that this is a 
bipartisan bill and look forward to passing the bill and addressing the 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill and 
urge my colleagues as they did on the authorization bill to defeat any 
amendment to strike out funding for the B-2.
  During that debate during the authorization bill, we were told 
repeatedly by the Defense Department that there was no money in the out 
years for funding for anything in the procurement area. I want my 
colleagues to know that the staff of the committee, working with me, 
found an account, $20 billion in DOD modernization reserve. This money 
was characterized by the Comptroller as a bishop's fund for the new 
Secretary of Defense to fund things that would come out of the 
Quadrennial Defense Review.
  Mr. Chairman, in the Quadrennial Defense Review, they did not 
obligate all of this money. There is still a substantial amount of 
money, $13 billion of the $20 billion that has not been committed. I 
would urge my colleagues today that that $13 billion is just about the 
exact amount of money that we need to go ahead and procure additional 
B-2 bombers.
  For those people who got up here and said over and over again that 
this is a zero sum game, it is a zero sum game, plus $20 billion in 
funding in the out years. I want my colleagues to be aware of this. We 
are going to have a spirited debate later on the B-2, but there is $20 
billion out there.
  I would also point out that in the past, Congress, this very Congress 
has insisted that certain things be done in the name of national 
defense. Our subcommittee forced the Pentagon to build 27 additional F-
117's. The F-117 stealth aircraft were the centerpiece of the success 
in the war in the gulf. Stealth worked and smart weapons worked. We 
saved American lives.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman for 1 additional minute.
  Mr. MURTHA. I may have to change my vote on the B-2.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman for 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Florida yield me a minute?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the F-117 was the star weapon in the gulf 
war and it was Congress that insisted that we buy it. The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Florida were the two principal 
proponents of that amendment. We also added money for sealift at the 
urging of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], then chairman. 
That turned out to be absolutely crucial.
  Under the Constitution of the United States, the ultimate 
responsibility for defense rests with the Congress. That is why today I 
think we again need to stand up, tell the Pentagon they are wrong, look 
at the modernization reserve, and keep the money in for the B-2.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] who wishes that I would have had to yield more 
time to the gentleman so I could have changed my vote on the B-2.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express dissenting views to those 
which apparently generally prevail in this House on this legislation.

                              {time}  1100

  We are about to vote on the largest appropriations bill that comes 
before us this year. We will do it in very little time, with very 
little debate and with very little protest, if you please, about what I 
consider to be some of the misguided efforts of this Congress in 
dealing with military budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that I heard during the 
discussion on the rule that there was alarm because there had been a 
number of years during which we have had a significant real reduction 
in the military budget. I would point out that is because we have had a 
significant reduction in the military threats facing this country. The 
fact is that since the collapse of the Soviet empire we have had about 
an 80-percent drop in Russian military spending. We have not seen a 
concurrent reduction in our own military spending to nearly that degree 
over that same period of time.
  I would also say that there have been a number of warnings that we 
are in effect, by what we are buying in the military budget, that we 
are again getting ready to fight the last war and not getting ready to 
fight the kind of war we could be facing in the future. Everyone who 
has studied the military budget knows that we are buying far too many 
high cost weapon systems in order to fit into the overall budget 
ceilings which we are being asked to comply with over the next 5 years 
under the budget agreement. No one who studies the military budget can 
come away without an understanding that we are going to have to stop 
the purchase of one and probably two expensive military weapon systems 
if we want to be able to maintain the level of readiness that will be 
needed over the coming years and, if we want to, at the same time, 
actually live within the budgets that are being set by these agreements 
that are being trumpeted around this town over the last couple of 
months and, in fact, couple of days.
  I will be offering two amendments today, one to eliminate the funding 
for additional B-2's that the Congress has decided that the Government 
ought to purchase despite the fact that over 20 studies through the 
years have indicated that we do not need those weapons and, in fact, 
that we even had the Defense Department itself conclude

[[Page H5937]]

that it would be counterproductive in terms of maximizing the use of 
our defense dollars.
  I will also be offering an amendment which precludes the sale of the 
F-22 abroad so that we do not get into the ludicrous position of 
selling our most sophisticated military technology around the world and 
then using that as an excuse to build yet more sophisticated planes in 
the future.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment, in addition to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the members of our subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston], who is chairman of the full committee, because while 
there have been some differences, we have been able to deal with these 
in a very, very responsible and mature way, and I appreciate the 
leadership of the chairman of the full committee and ranking member, 
who have cooperated with us.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say this is a good 
bill. There will be several amendments that we will agree to, others 
that we will have to oppose, but all and all it is a good bill. It 
provides, within the budget limits, it provides the best that we can 
for the members of the military, and we are getting a lot for the 
dollar.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2266 the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998, and I 
applaud the hard work of Members on both sides of the aisle who crafted 
a truly bipartisan agreement that strengthens our Armed Forces at home 
and abroad. But, I was disappointed to see that the Department of 
Defense's peer-reviewed breast cancer research program was funded at 
only $125 million. Whereas the Senate wisely chose to fund this program 
at $175 million for fiscal year 1998.
  Mr. Speaker, breast cancer remains the most common cancer in women. 
Last year, close to 200,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer and 
nearly 50,000 died of the disease. Women continue to face a 1 in 8 
chance of developing breast cancer during their lifetimes. Thankfully 
the breast cancer death rate for U.S. women has fallen about 5 percent 
in recent years, dropping from 27.5 per 100,000 women in 1989 to 25.9 
in 1993. Officials with the National Cancer Institute attribute the 
drop, in part, to a rapid increase in mammography and public awareness 
of the disease. But, research remains our most valuable and 
indispensable instrument in combating this devastating disease.
  There is no better argument in favor of more research than my own 
district on eastern Long Island. Suffolk County, Long Island, which 
ranks fourth in breast cancer mortality rates among the 116 largest 
counties in the United States. This extremely high rate of incidence of 
breast cancer has prompted the establishment of the Long Island Breast 
Cancer Study Project, a 5 year effort to identify the possible 
environmental factors that can contribute to the development of breast 
cancer.
  Over the past several years, number of significant research advances 
have been made regarding the basic biology of breast cancer that offer 
a glimmer of hope to women and their families. These advances are 
enabling researchers to better focus on areas that hold future promise 
for research. The Department of Defense's peer-reviewed program has 
become renowned for its innovative and efficient use of resources. Over 
90 percent of program funds go directly to research grants. This 
program is critical and deserves increased funding. I urge my 
colleagues in the House to adopt the Senate's funding level of $175 
million so that the Department of Defense can continue its vital work 
in fighting breast cancer. Mr. Speaker, too many of our mothers, 
daughters, and sisters have been afflicted with this destructive 
disease. We must do more. Thank you.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Young and 
Congressman Murtha for their considerable work on the Department of 
Defense Appropriations. The bill before the House today appropriates 
$248.3 billion for defense programs. In this process we have taken 
several positive steps, but we have also neglected our responsibilities 
at times.
  As many of my colleagues know, I am a supporter of the Ballistic 
Missile Defense program. I am encouraged by the $3.7 billion provided 
to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. Though an unlikely 
target, my island, Guam, is an American community among other nations. 
We must strive to establish a program that protects all American 
communities should a country develop the capabilities and possess the 
will to pose a missile threat to the United States. We must endeavor to 
develop a system and deploy it in conjunction with the capabilities of 
any potential adversary. Now is the time to ensure these programs are 
headed in the direction to ensure our safety.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill also rectifies a failure to provide proper 
health care for our military members. This House has seen the need to 
ensure quality health care and the impact this has on the quality of 
life for our service members by appropriating $10.3 billion for the 
Defense Health Program. In addition, Mr. Chairman this bill takes major 
steps to ensure we equip our service members with the best and most 
advanced weaponry and equipment. One item of concern to me was the 
Marine Corps need for the V-22 Osprey. The increase in funding for the 
V-22 will provide a valuable tool to the Marine Corps and I am 
encouraged that my colleagues have supported this effort. Mr. Chairman, 
this bill takes several positive steps, but everything is not 
beneficial.
  Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed by the Department of Defense's 
handling of appropriations for the Department of Defense Education 
Activity. These appropriations support the Department of Defense 
Overseas Schools and Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary 
Schools. This bill recommends an increase of $4 million over the budget 
request and an increase of $20 million to be applied to the backlog of 
real property maintenance. Let me explain to my colleagues why there 
are problems with how the DOD Education Activity handles its funds. As 
some of my colleagues may know, the Department of Defense has taken on 
an initiative to open DOD schools on Guam. This may be the first time 
domestic schools were established not in a combined effort with the 
local community but in complete disregard for the local community. To 
highlight this effort, in February of this year the DOD comptroller, 
the person that is crucial to the budget development, testified before 
the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Military 
Construction that no DOD schools would be established in Guam. Yet, the 
Defense Department swiftly moved to establish schools and to accomplish 
this reprogrammed funds. As I was briefed yesterday, funds were 
reprogrammed from within the DOD Education Activity and from other 
operations and maintenance accounts. What we have done by giving a 
blanket increase in funding is allowed DOD to disregard the proper 
appropriations process. I hope these reprogramming efforts do not 
result in a lack of funding for those schools that are established and 
were reflected in the budget process.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of the House 
Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security to express my strong 
support for H.R. 2266, the fiscal year 1998 Defense appropriations 
bill.
  As my colleagues have mentioned, this bill adds $4.4 billion to the 
President's original request for fiscal year 1998, although the 
Secretary of Defense and the services subsequently informed Congress of 
several shortfalls which require funding above the President's budget. 
I am pleased that Congress insisted upon, and President Clinton now 
supports, an increase in the defense budget for fiscal year 1998. The 
President's original request severely underfunded a number of key 
defense priorities, including health care and modernization, and 
additional funding has helped the Appropriations Committee correct 
those shortfalls.
  H.R. 2266 also includes several provisions which promote greater 
efficiency and reforms in the way the Department of Defense operates 
and spends public funds. According to the nonprofit defense reform 
group Business Executives for National Security, between 60 and 70 
percent of the defense budget is consumed by support personnel and 
infrastructure, such as logistics, maintenance, and travel supervision, 
while only 30 to 40 percent goes to fund actual combat forces. H.R. 
2266 addresses this problem by reducing expenditures for personnel and 
operations to reflect over $500 million in savings from increased 
outsourcing, privatization, and other reforms. For example, this bill 
saves $50 million in taxpayer dollars because the Department of Defense 
will no longer be required to purchase warranties for new weapons 
unless it makes sense to do so.
  I am also glad this bill improves on the administration's request for 
military research and procurement, which is essential if America is 
going to remain a world leader in the next century. H.R. 2266 increases 
funding for defense modernization by $4.7 billion over the President's 
budget. Let me mention a few ways these funds will be used to prepare 
our forces for warfare in the next century:
  First, this bill will accelerate research and development on theater 
and national missile defense systems. Our troops and citizens are 
currently virtually defenseless against ballistic missile attack, 
including missiles armed with nuclear, biological, or chemical 
warheads. During the gulf war, Iraqi Scud's demonstrated the military 
and political danger of this vulnerability, yet we are still behind in 
our efforts to provide our troops with effective missile defense. H.R. 
2266 addresses this problem.

[[Page H5938]]

  Let me single out one specific missile defense program I strongly 
support: the airborne laser. This program, which is actually in the Air 
Force budget, would load a high powered laser into a Boeing 747, which 
would patrol near enemy territory and shoot down enemy missiles 
immediately after their launch, which means that any noxious payloads 
on those missiles would fall back on enemy territory. Gen. Thomas 
Moorman, the Undersecretary of the Air Force, has described this 
project as ``the most revolutionary weapon in the DOD budget today'', 
and I am proud to support it.

  Second, H.R. 2266 provides over $100 million to improve the DOD's 
ability to defend against chemical and biological attack with better 
technology, equipment, and training. Chemical and biological weapons 
are a primary new threat to American forces and the American people. 
They are relatively inexpensive and easy to build, so terrorists and 
less advanced nations view these horrible weapons as a means to 
compensate for the conventional superiority of American forces.
  I also want to express my support for a provision suggested by my 
colleague from Washington State, Congressman Dicks, which would require 
the Department of Defense to report on alternatives to current theater 
combat simulations. The Department of Defense is still using combat 
models which were developed decades ago to simulate warfare between 
huge land armies fighting in Europe. These models are inappropriate for 
the kind of conflict U.S. forces have seen in the 1990's and will see 
in the next century, yet they are used to choose the shape of U.S. 
military forces and to evaluate revolutionary weapons systems. These 
models fail to adequately consider the innovations of aircraft stealth 
and precision munitions, or the selective bombing tactics used by the 
Air Force to render Iraqi forces in the gulf war ineffective.
  Revising the DOD's theater combat simulation tools will not only 
improve the ability of the DOD to incorporate advanced weaponry and 
tactics into defense planning. Better models will help the United 
States plan for unconventional challenges which face future U.S. 
forces, such as chemical and biological weapons, attacks on defense and 
civilian computer networks, cruise and ballistic missile attacks, and 
competition for control of space.
  Finally, I am glad that the National Security Subcommittee provided 
for a $274 million shortfall in military health care funding. Thousands 
of military families and retirees in my district rely upon military 
health care facilities and the TRICARE network, and this drastic cut in 
health care in the President's budget would have significantly reduced 
access to health care in eastern Washington. I support the additional 
committee funding for health care to make up this shortfall and keep 
faith with this Nation's military retirees and military families.
  One of the health care provisions with which I was personally 
involved is a research program to look at innovative diabetes 
detection, prevention, and care techniques. Diabetes affects over 16 
million Americans, including thousands of military beneficiaries. Many 
of the health consequences and costs of diabetes can be avoided through 
effective diabetes screening and early treatment. A project reflecting 
these goals was described in testimony presented to the House National 
Security Appropriations Subcommittee, which would conduct a two-region 
experiment in conjunction with the Veterans Administration. I look 
forward to seeing this project go forward and benefit the military 
families and retirees who are at risk from this disease.
  I encourage all Members of the House to support this legislation. 
H.R. 2266 includes funding for important military priorities, promotes 
increased efficiency at the Department of Defense, and provides health 
care to military beneficiaries.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I want to inform the House that the 
ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Murtha has informed me that the 
Appropriations Committee has reviewed allegations with respect to the 
Navy and the low-bid awardee of a contract to provide cockpit video 
recording systems for the F/A-18, and that the committee has found the 
Navy's conduct and the performance of the contractor to comply with all 
applicable laws and regulations. This should put this issue to rest.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, during consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2266, the Defense appropriations bill, the House adopted an 
amendment that would eliminate the participation of the Defense 
Department in a valuable program of international scientific 
cooperation, the Man and the Biosphere program.
  This amendment was not about money. Indeed, the Air Force 
participation has been voluntary and they have usually provided only 
about $50,000 each year. This amendment would bar them from 
participating in this interagency program and that money would simply 
be spent elsewhere. The cost of offering and debating this amendment is 
likely far greater than anything the taxpayer would see in savings.
  This amendment is about policy, however--a very bad policy. This 
amendment says that Congress believes that there is no link between 
environmental stewardship and national security. It says that we intend 
that the Federal agencies should withdraw from any international 
leadership role in demonstrating how sustainable development and 
economic growth can be made compatible.
  One need only look at emerging political strife in countries such as 
Nigeria to see the direct relationship between the environment and the 
ability of Third World nations to work toward democracy. For this 
reason, the State Department has begun to make environmental concerns 
an integral piece of our foreign policy and national security strategy. 
This amendment would negate that progress.
  There have been a great many arguments made against the Man and the 
Biosphere program over the past several months. Opponents have 
characterized it as a U.N. plot to take over our sovereign lands, that 
it degrades property values, and that the executive branch lacks legal 
authority to carry out this program. All of these arguments are based 
on severe distortions of fact.
  What is true, and a matter I have personally sought to address, is 
that the Congress has never enacted organic legislation that spells out 
exactly what the Man and the Biosphere program should do and what it 
should not do. Unfortunately, my bill, H.R. 1801, has not been brought 
to the floor and there is no indication that it will be.
  This is not unusual, however, most of the programs Congress 
appropriates money for lack such a statutory basis. It is unreasonable 
to assert that the Congress should enact an organic bill for each 
program in the Federal Government. The sheer cost and complexity of 
this would be staggering.
  Earlier this year, the House narrowly voted to eliminate this program 
in the Interior appropriations bill. Fortunately, the other body had 
explicitly rejected the House position. I hope it will continue to do 
so for other bills containing this limitation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be 
considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2266

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1998, for military functions 
     administered by the Department of Defense, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active 
     duty (except members of reserve components provided for 
     elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), to section 229(b) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)), and to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund; $20,445,381,000.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active 
     duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere), 
     midshipmen, and aviation cadets; and for payments pursuant to 
     section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 
     note), to section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 429(b)), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund; $16,504,911,000.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities,

[[Page H5939]]

     permanent change of station travel (including all expenses 
     thereof for organizational movements), and expenses of 
     temporary duty travel between permanent duty stations, for 
     members of the Marine Corps on active duty (except members of 
     the Reserve provided for elsewhere); and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), to section 229(b) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)), and to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund; $6,141,635,000.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Air Force on 
     active duty (except members of reserve components provided 
     for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), to section 229(b) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)), and to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund; $17,044,874,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and for members of the Reserve Officers' 
     Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of 
     title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund; 
     $2,045,615,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Navy 
     Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     for members of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund; $1,377,249,000.

                    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Marine 
     Corps Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund; $391,953,000.

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and for members of the Air Reserve 
     Officers' Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 
     16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to 
     the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund; 
     $814,772,000.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     National Guard while on duty under section 10211, 10302, or 
     12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States 
     Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of 
     title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund; $3,245,387,000.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air 
     National Guard on duty under section 10211, 10305, or 12402 
     of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, 
     or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10 
     or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund; $1,331,417,000.

                                TITLE II

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law; 
     and not to exceed $11,437,000, can be used for emergencies 
     and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Army, and payments may be 
     made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes; $17,078,218,000 and, in addition, 
     $50,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the National 
     Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund: Provided, That of the 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph, not less than 
     $300,000,000 shall be made available only for conventional 
     ammunition care and maintenance.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps, 
     as authorized by law; and not to exceed $4,011,000, can be 
     used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be 
     expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the 
     Navy, and payments may be made on his certificate of 
     necessity for confidential military purposes; $21,779,365,000 
     and, in addition, $50,000,000 shall be derived by transfer 
     from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund: 
     Provided, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, 
     $406,666,000 shall not be obligated or expended until 
     authorized by law.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized 
     by law; $2,598,032,000: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph, $216,787,000 shall not be 
     obligated or expended until authorized by law.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by 
     law; and not to exceed $8,362,000 can be used for emergencies 
     and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payments may 
     be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes; $18,740,167,000 and, in addition, 
     $50,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the National 
     Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the 
     Department of Defense (other than the military departments), 
     as authorized by law; $10,066,956,000, of which not to exceed 
     $25,000,000 may be available for the CINC initiative fund 
     account; and of which not to exceed $28,850,000 can be used 
     for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on 
     the approval or authority of the Secretary of Defense, and 
     payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for 
     confidential military purposes: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph, $36,899,000 shall not be 
     obligated or expended until authorized by law.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 1 which was 
preprinted.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Page 9, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 25, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we had expected that this was 
amendment No. 3.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I called it 1 when I handed it to them. It 
is the $15 million one, which is for the cooperative research program, 
VA cooperative research.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that this is amendment No. 3 as 
printed in the Record.
  The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I shall not use the entire time.
  Every year since 1987, the VA medical and prosthetics research 
appropriation has been supplemented by funds transferred to the VA 
under a cooperative agreement between the DOD and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. The DOD-VA cooperative medical research program 
supports vital research covering a broad spectrum of health,

[[Page H5940]]

science, and medical research focusing on conditions that impact both 
active duty and veterans. Among the programs funded are posttraumatic 
stress disorder research, cardiovascular fitness, combat casualty care, 
bone healing replacement, skin repair, vascular repair, spinal cord 
injury. This is an excellent program. I know times are tough, but I 
believe that we should be able to find the funds within the budget to 
fund this program at the modest level of $15 million.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we have no problem on this side with the 
amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the 
gentleman that we have funded this program in the past, and one reason 
we did not include it in the bill for this year was the fact that the 
other body did include it, and we expect that it will be a conference 
item. But we do support the program, and we are prepared to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to be absolutely certain 
that we get the funding into this program, it did not get lost in 
conference. I appreciate the support of the gentleman from Florida and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are their there other amendments to this portion of the 
bill?


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 9, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am bringing forth is 
a very simple amendment. It is a chance for Members in the House to 
support their National Guard to increase funding for an educational 
program that represents just the kind of policy initiatives we need for 
young people in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which is endorsed by the National Guard 
Association of the United States, will increase funding by $2 million 
for the National Guard star based program, bringing the program up to 
the President's request of $4 million. The star based public outreach 
program is administered by the National Guard and targets youth in 
grades 4 through 6, it is the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades, to 
learn, hands on, with Guard pilots and technicians about math, science, 
and technology and to stay off of drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, the star based program, my amendment brings funding for 
the National Guard star based program up to the $4 million requested by 
the President. This is, I think, exactly what we want to do in our 
communities. We talk a whole lot about asking kids to stay off of 
drugs. What this program does is have people from the National Guard 
interact with young people, explain to them the planes in the air work 
for certain reasons and get young kids excited in math and science, and 
the studies that have been done on the results of this program are 
excellent. More and more kids have an interest in math, they have an 
interest in science. It is a wonderful program for the National Guard, 
and it has been very successful.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, offering the same explanation 
that I did on the previous amendment, we are happy to accept this 
amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida very 
much and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on this amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young].
  As the gentleman was aware, the Senate-passed defense authorization 
bill for fiscal year 1998 recommends $5 million for the Secretary of 
Defense to conduct a pilot program to determine if hydrocarbon fuels 
can be tagged for analysis and identification.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BRADY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to his question 
by saying that is my understanding.
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, it is anticipated that this program will 
deter theft, aid in the investigation of fuel theft and aid in 
determining the source of surface and underground pollution and 
locations where the Department of Defense and civilian companies 
maintain separate fuel storage facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would say the gentleman is 
correct in his description of this program.
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, it is also my understanding that this pilot 
program could also be funded through title II of the pending bill in 
the operation and maintenance defense-wide account.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, again if the gentleman will 
yield, I would say that he is correct on the likely source of funding 
for this pilot program.
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to learning the results of 
this pilot program and thank the gentleman from Florida for his 
leadership and assistance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications; 
     $1,207,891,000: Provided, That of the funds appropriated in 
     this paragraph, $5,000,000 shall not be obligated or expended 
     until authorized by law.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications; 
     $924,711,000: Provided, That of the funds appropriated in 
     this paragraph, $75,000,000 shall not be obligated or 
     expended until authorized by law.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications; $119,266,000: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph, $8,900,000 shall not be 
     obligated or expended until authorized by law.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications; $1,635,250,000: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph, $6,130,000 shall not be 
     obligated or expended until authorized by law.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the 
     Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment 
     and

[[Page H5941]]

     related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, 
     operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National 
     Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as 
     authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army 
     National Guard division, regimental, and battalion commanders 
     while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard 
     Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau; supplying and equipping the Army 
     National Guard as authorized by law; and expenses of repair, 
     modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies and 
     equipment (including aircraft); $2,313,632,000: Provided, 
     That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, $47,200,000 
     shall not be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For operation and maintenance of the Air National Guard, 
     including medical and hospital treatment and related expenses 
     in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, operation, repair, and 
     other necessary expenses of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air National Guard, including repair of 
     facilities, maintenance, operation, and modification of 
     aircraft; transportation of things, hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; supplies, materials, and equipment, as authorized 
     by law for the Air National Guard; and expenses incident to 
     the maintenance and use of supplies, materials, and 
     equipment, including such as may be furnished from stocks 
     under the control of agencies of the Department of Defense; 
     travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same basis as 
     authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel on active 
     Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders while 
     inspecting units in compliance with National Guard Bureau 
     regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau; $2,995,719,000: Provided, That of the 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph, $9,750,000 shall not be 
     obligated or expended until authorized by law.

             Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses directly relating to Overseas Contingency 
     Operations by United States military forces; $1,855,400,000: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer these 
     funds only to operation and maintenance accounts within this 
     title, and working capital funds: Provided further, That the 
     funds transferred shall be merged with and shall be available 
     for the same purposes and for the same time period, as the 
     appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     the transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere 
     in this Act: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
     in this paragraph, $387,900,000 shall not be obligated or 
     expended until authorized by law.

          United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

       For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; $6,952,000, of which 
     not to exceed $5,000 can be used for official representation 
     purposes.

                    Environmental Restoration, Army


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $377,337,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Army, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

                    Environmental Restoration, Navy


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Navy, $277,500,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Navy shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Navy, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Navy, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

                  Environmental Restoration, Air Force


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Air Force, $378,900,000, to 
     remain available until transferred: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall, upon determining that such 
     funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction 
     and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings 
     and debris of the Department of the Air Force, or for similar 
     purposes, transfer the funds made available by this 
     appropriation to other appropriations made available to the 
     Department of the Air Force, to be merged with and to be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same time period 
     as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That upon a determination that all or part of the funds 
     transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the 
     purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred 
     back to this appropriation.

                Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Defense, $27,900,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of Defense, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of Defense, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

         Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $202,300,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris at 
     sites formerly used by the Department of Defense, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriation to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

             Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

       For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense 
     (consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402, 
     404, 2547, and 2551 of title 10, United States Code); 
     $55,557,000, to remain available until September 30, 1999: 
     Provided, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, 
     $5,557,000 shall not be obligated or expended until 
     authorized by law.

                  Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction

       For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union, 
     including assistance provided by contract or by grants, for 
     facilitating the elimination and the safe and secure 
     transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical and other 
     weapons; for establishing programs to prevent the 
     proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-
     related technology and expertise; for programs relating to 
     the training and support of defense and military personnel 
     for demilitarization and protection of weapons, weapons 
     components, and weapons technology and expertise; 
     $284,700,000, to remain available until September 30, 2000.

                               TITLE III

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $1,541,217,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2000: Provided, That of the $309,231,000 
     appropriated in this paragraph for the procurement of UH-60 
     helicopters, $253,231,000 shall be available only for the 
     procurement of 26 such aircraft to be provided to the Army 
     National Guard and $56,000,000 shall be available only for 
     the procurement of four such aircraft to be reconfigured as 
     CH-60 helicopters and provided to the Navy Reserve: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, 
     $5,953,000 shall not be obligated or expended until 
     authorized by law.

                       Missile Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment

[[Page H5942]]

     and training devices; expansion of public and private plants, 
     including the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing 
     purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be 
     acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes; $771,942,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2000.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including 
     ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes; $1,332,907,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2000.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854, title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $1,062,802,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2000.

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked 
     combat vehicles; communications and electronic equipment; 
     other support equipment; spare parts, ordnance, and 
     accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training 
     devices; expansion of public and private plants, including 
     the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $2,502,886,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2000.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may 
     be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; $6,753,465,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2000: Provided, That of 
     the funds appropriated in this paragraph, $580,515,000 shall 
     not be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and 
     related support equipment including spare parts, and 
     accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants, 
     including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and 
     procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and 
     Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; 
     $1,175,393,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2000.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854, title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $423,797,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2000.

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

       For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, 
     or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including 
     armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools and installation thereof in public and private 
     plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned 
     equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long leadtime 
     components and designs for vessels to be constructed or 
     converted in the future; and expansion of public and private 
     plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, 
     $7,628,158,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002: Provided, That additional obligations may 
     be incurred after September 30, 2002, for engineering 
     services, tests, evaluations, and other such budgeted work 
     that must be performed in the final stage of ship 
     construction: Provided further, That none of the funds herein 
     provided for the construction or conversion of any naval 
     vessel to be constructed in shipyards in the United States 
     shall be expended in foreign facilities for the construction 
     of major components of such vessel: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds herein provided shall be used for the 
     construction of any naval vessel in foreign shipyards: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this paragraph 
     for advance procurement for the overhaul of CVN-69 may be 
     obligated unless the overhaul includes installation of 
     cooperative engagement capability and the ship self-defense 
     system: Provided further, That none of the funds in this 
     paragraph for production of DDG-51 destroyers may be 
     obligated unless at least four of the twelve ships in the 
     multiyear contract for fiscal years 1997 to 2001 are to be 
     delivered to the Government with cooperative engagement 
     capability and theater ballistic missile defense capability 
     installed when the ships are commissioned.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For procurement, production, and modernization of support 
     equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy 
     ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and 
     ships authorized for conversion); the purchase of not to 
     exceed 194 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; and 
     the purchase of one vehicle required for physical security of 
     personnel, notwithstanding price limitations applicable to 
     passenger vehicles but not to exceed $275,000 per vehicle; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may 
     be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; $3,084,485,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2000: Provided, That of 
     the funds appropriated in this paragraph, $11,053,000 shall 
     not be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture, 
     and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment, 
     appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in 
     public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine 
     Corps, including the purchase of not to exceed 40 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; and expansion of public 
     and private plants, including land necessary therefor, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     $491,198,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2000: Provided, That of the funds appropriated 
     in this paragraph, $48,391,000 shall not be obligated or 
     expended until authorized by law.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of aircraft 
     and equipment, including armor and armament, specialized 
     ground handling equipment, and training devices, spare parts, 
     and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; expansion of 
     public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things; 
     $6,386,479,000 to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2000: Provided, That of the amounts provided 
     under this heading, $20,000,000 is available only to initiate 
     phase II of the Department of Defense plan to acquire and 
     install upgraded navigation and safety equipment for 
     passenger and troop carrying aircraft.

                              {time}  1115


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 27, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $331,000,000)''.
       Page 31, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $105,000,000)''.

[[Page H5943]]

       Page 35, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $12,000,000)''.
       Page 35, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $12,000,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of 
myself and a number of other Members, including the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums]. I know there are other Members who will be 
speaking on it as well. This amendment essentially cuts 331 million 
from the bill to prevent the production of 9 B-2's that the Pentagon 
has not even asked for. It would reduce the deficit by $214 million. It 
would add $105 million for the air National Guard KC-135 reengining and 
it would add $12 million for Army breast cancer research. It would also 
remove a major veto threat to this bill and we would wind up spending 
less money.
  What I am trying to do is to remove a $27 billion fiscal time bomb 
which is tucked into this bill. I want to simply point out that the 
cost of these B-2 bombers by the time they are fully purchased, by the 
time they are fully equipped, will drive the rest of the defense budget 
into a squeeze which I do not believe thoughtful Members will want to 
see it experience.
  To put this in perspective, this is a bomber which has been turned 
down by some 20 different studies. Five different times the proponents 
of proceeding with the B-2 have asked for studies to try to object to 
the fact that four different Secretaries of Defense have tried to limit 
the number of B-2's that we are buying to 20. Each time the studies 
wound up saying that the decisions made by the Secretaries of Defense 
were the correct decisions and that we should not be proceeding to 
build more than the number of bombers asked for by the Pentagon.
  To put this in perspective, just 2 years ago the cost of one of these 
B-2 bombers was expected to be about $1.2 billion. That is enough to 
pay the undergraduate tuition for every single student at the 
University of Wisconsin for the next 11 years. Yet the Congress is 
being asked to buy 9 additional B-2's that the Pentagon does not want, 
that the President does not want, and that the Defense Department has 
indicated would cause a veto.
  I want to read from the statement of administration policy. It says: 
``Overall, for the reasons stated below, the Secretary of Defense would 
join the President's other senior advisors in recommending that the 
President veto the bill if it were presented to him in its current 
form.''
  It goes on to say about the B-2: ``The administration firmly opposes 
the $331 million increase to the President's request for B-2 
production.'' And it goes on to say that ``this life cycle cost of over 
$20 billion would weaken the ability of the Air Force to acquire other 
urgently needed weapons systems and that these resources should be 
allocated to higher priority requirements.''
  Now, what I am trying to do today is to remove that veto threat.
  I would also like to read from Secretary Cohen's QDI report which 
says as follows: ``The B-2 would not provide the full range of war 
fighting and shaping capabilities offered by the forces it would 
replace * * *. It goes on to say the B-2 ``did not provide the same 
weaponry delivery capacity per day as the forces that would have to be 
retired to pay for the B-2's.'' And then it concludes by saying there 
``would be a loss in war fighting capability during the decade or more 
between when the outgoing forces were retired and all the B-2's were 
delivered.''
  It seems to me that indicates that we ought to not proceed to make 
this very expensive purchase.
  Instead what we are trying to do is to use a good portion of this for 
deficit reduction and then to provide some funding so that we can 
increase the reengining of KC-135's for the Air National Guard which 
are crucial to our refueling procedures around the world. Basically we 
have a number of older planes with very low-flying hours which are in 
very good shape. We can reengine those planes, use them for refueling 
operations and save a good amount of money, over $105 million in the 
process.
  Third, we would add $12 million to the Army breast cancer research 
and treatment program, bringing that up above the level provided in the 
bill. That program has recently received a very good evaluation when it 
has been peer reviewed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that what is at issue here 
is not whether we ought to have a strong defense or not. It is not 
whether we ought to provide our troops with the best equipment money 
can buy or not. Obviously we need a strong defense and obviously we 
need to provide the best weaponry that money can buy for our troops. 
The question is, do we really need to buy nine additional bombers that 
the Pentagon is saying we do not need, the Secretary of Defense is 
saying we do not need, especially when we have other higher priority 
items in the military budget. I think the answer to that question is 
no. I think we ought to heed those some 20 studies that have been 
conducted on this matter. This amendment is supported on a bipartisan 
basis and I would urge the House to adopt it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word, and I rise to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman yielding. I rise reluctantly 
to oppose the position of the ranking member of the full committee, for 
I understand how carefully he has reviewed this matter. But frankly, 
just a couple of years ago I had taken a position that was not 
dissimilar. I was responding to the administration's direction that 
perhaps we could get by with two squadrons, that is, 20 B-2's. In spite 
of the fact that the trend around the Congress was to say to DOD that 
we were going to begin to withdraw our troops from the world, close 
foreign bases and have most of our military assets located in to the 
continental United States.
  Then during the midst of the campaign when candidate Bob Dole was 
going to southern California just the day before he arrived at a 
location, Pico Rivera, where many of these employees who deal with the 
B-2 work, the President announced that he was going to support the 21st 
B-2. That is, I gathered he was supporting the third squadron or at 
least moving in that direction. Recognizing that if we are going to be 
withdrawing troop force around the world and still need, as the leader 
of the free world, to project force, that indeed we had to have enough 
assets available to be able to deliver force with great strength at 
long distance and at relatively low cost. Such a force, for example, 
would be quickly available to stop a rogue nation that was going to 
cross its neighbor's boarders and strike it heavily. Our B-2 force 
could be present quickly and then give us time to get personnel, ships 
and other assets into the region.
  There is little doubt that a third squadron is very necessary if we 
are going to play that sort of role in this hopefully growing more 
peaceful world. The B-2 is fundamental to America's continued 
leadership as we recognize that fewer of our overall assets are going 
to be available for national defense.
  There is little doubt that we are on the right track to develop a 
third squadron. It will save us money over time. But probably most 
importantly Mr. Chairman, it is a fundamental asset in all of our 
desire to maintain peace and freedom in the world. I strongly oppose 
the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
California, who has been one of our most steadfast supporters on the B-
2 over the years. I want to point out to my colleagues in the House 
that there was a very positive statement in the Quadrennial Defense 
Review which said that in the halt phase, when you are trying to stop 
the enemy from coming in, like Saddam was coming into Kuwait, that 
there is nothing that the United States military possesses that can do 
what the B-2 bomber will be able to do once we get the smart 
conventional submunitions on it like sensor fused weapon.
  Going back to the gulf war, Iran did assimilation against Saddam's 
division

[[Page H5944]]

moving south and with a small number of B-2 bombers, with sensor fused 
weapon, they destroyed 46 percent of the mechanized vehicles in that 
division and rendered it destroyed in the field.
  That is an incredible new capability. We have never had that 
capability before to stop a mechanized division once it is under way.
  I believe that this bomber is absolutely essential to our national 
security. I believe that this is one of the greatest mistakes ever made 
by a country in its history in not funding something that will give us 
an asymmetrical advantage over every conceivable adversary. Because a 
stealth bomber with these smart weapons can attack a nation's capital, 
all of its industrial facilities, all of its military at the same time, 
if you have enough of these bombers. That is the problem. Twenty-one 
simply does not do the job.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the 
gentleman makes several very important points. As we conventionalize 
the B-2, there is little doubt that it provides an asset that indeed 
allows America to extend its force very cheaply relative to other 
assets that are available to us. Indeed if America is going to defend 
freedom from our continental base, indeed if we are going to continue 
to close down bases around the world, there is little doubt that we 
need to be able to strike quickly and safely, deliver force that will 
stop a would-be aggressor.

                              {time}  1130

  It is very fundamental to the policy presently in place, and I 
strongly support procuring nine additional B-2's.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we are gathered here in this Chamber on a very historic 
opportunity, an historic day, to balance the Federal budget, to bring 
about some fiscal sanity in this Nation, to tell the American taxpayers 
we are finally, after many decades, becoming more responsible with 
their money.
  Not a day goes by that we do not open the newspaper and see a story 
of more fraud, waste, and abuse in our Federal Government. Medicare: 
Report indicates $24 billion in wasteful fraudulent spending--$23 
billion.
  A report the other day, commissioned by the Air Force, indicates that 
several of our current fleet are rusting away, are dangerous planes to 
fly.
  Today, I rise to support the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] in their effort to cut the 
B-2 bomber, cut $331 million from the bill to start production of nine 
more B-2's.
  Let us tell the whole story. They indicate it will cost $27 billion 
to continue to build this plane, not $331 million. That is the start-up 
price. That is to get a foot in the door. That is to keep the 
production line going.
  I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin because he did something today 
that I am very much in support of: reducing the deficit by $214 
million, using the cuts to reduce the deficit. Fiscal sanity. Changing 
priorities. Finding a way to make ends meet.
  How can we, in good conscience, let this opportunity go by us? We can 
balance the budget, but we can do more. The economy is going in our 
direction. We are reducing spending in so many areas. We are increasing 
revenues. But, my fellow colleagues, the deficit still hovers at $5.3 
trillion.
  By the year 2002, when we finally balance, maybe before, we will be 
$6 trillion in debt. In spending on interest alone on the deficit, $285 
billion going out of the coffers of the American taxpayers into the 
pockets of the bond holders, not doing anything for society, not 
rebuilding infrastructure, not making a difference in our inner cities, 
not improving education for our children--$285 billion on spending for 
interest alone.
  It is like paying a 30-year mortgage and never touching the 
principal. At the end of 30 years we still owe the same amount we did 
when we bought the house.
  My fellow colleagues, it is a simple analogy. We have plenty of B-2 
bombers. The Pentagon says the current fleet of 21 B-2 bombers is 
sufficient to meet the two war scenario, the ability to fight and win 
two wars at the same time.
  The massive Deep-Attack Weapons Mix Study conducted by the Pentagon 
concluded that it would not be more cost effective to buy B-2 bombers. 
Republican appointee Defense Secretary Cohen, appointed by the 
President, a member of my party from Maine, does not want any more B-2 
bombers. I have to trust the Secretary of Defense in making judgments 
and determinations.
  The Pentagon has told us they do not want any more B-2 bombers. 
Military generals have told us they do not want any more B-2 bombers. 
But we sit here with the Nation's checkbook and say we will have our 
will in this House, we will insist on buying more B-2 bombers. We do 
not care what the experts tell us, we will waste taxpayers' dollars to 
please some defense contractors. It is time to stop that kind of 
wasteful spending.
  Again, the Congressional Budget Office, the one CBO that we held up 
as the model of efficiency and accuracy when we debated the tax 
measures, the CBO projects that to build and operate nine additional B-
2 bombers over the next 20 years could cost over $27 billion--$27 
billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to come to this floor prepared to 
make a sacrifice for the American taxpayers today, to support the Obey 
amendment to strike the B-2 bomber, to save $331 million today, $27 
billion over the life of this project, to reduce the deficit by $214 
million, add $105 million for the Air National Guard KC-135 re-engining 
and add $12 million for Army breast cancer research, one of the most 
accurate groups that has been working on detecting breast cancer and 
curing breast cancer, the Army breast cancer research program. It also 
removes a major veto threat the President has indicated.
  I am not concerned about veto threats. The President makes them on 
almost every bill. But on this one I particularly agree with him. I 
agree with him because I think he is making a good point on saving the 
fiscal sanity of this Nation. And, again, I have supported, as a Member 
of Congress from Florida, most defense spending on new weapon systems. 
This one has to go. Eliminate it and support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young], and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], for an excellent bill. Over the years I 
think they have given us better bills than many times what we have 
supported.
  I, for one, want to thank them for the language that assures the 
inspector general to conduct random audits on these so-called micro 
purchases of foreign-made goods, and also for the language that deals 
with reciprocity when foreign countries do not allow our companies to 
bid on their products; that this would in fact rescind the blanket 
waiver of the Buy American Act. That language makes a lot of sense in 
this bill.
  I rise today because in the past I have voted to slow down defense 
building. But we just did not slow down defense building, we have 
really whacked away at the defense budget. I would just like to say 
that probably our major role here is to protect our national security, 
in Congress. We cannot protect the national security of our great 
Nation with a neighborhood crime watch.
  Defense is expensive, and B-2 is a weapon of strength. Ronald Reagan 
once made a statement that made a lot of sense to me. He said you 
always negotiate from a position of strength. B-2 is absolute stone 
cold strength.
  Without talking about Captain O'Grady, without talking about a great 
need, it, in fact, boggles my mind that we continue to discuss B-2 with 
its great stealth strength opportunities for us. If we cannot see it, 
we cannot hear it, it cannot be detected by radar, and we should not 
talk about it, how will they know how many we really have? But the 
greatest weapon of all war is the weapon of deterrence, and the 
greatest weapon of strength we now have in our arsenal is the B-2.
  I am standing today supporting this bill, and I would also like to 
add that I believe we have cut too far and we are beginning to weaken, 
weaken long-term national security interests through our zeal to what 
many call

[[Page H5945]]

this cutting back on this bloated budget. I believe we are underfunded 
for defense now and, intelligently, we should move the program forward.
  We should stand here, Mr. Chairman, and support B-2. B-2 is strength. 
We have always negotiated from a position of strength, and we should 
always be prepared to protect our national security from that position 
of strength.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman and the ranking member 
including those Buy American issues, those reciprocity issues, those 
micro purchase issues, foreign-made goods, addressing them 
intelligently in this bill.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not congratulate the 
chairman, the gentleman from Florida, {Mr. Bill Young]. I have been 
serving on this Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on 
Appropriations for a long, long while, and he has conducted this markup 
in the committee in a way that is absolutely exemplary. He has shown a 
side that very few of us can say that we have exhibited here, his 
compassion for research, cancer research, bone marrow, head injuries; 
and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Jack Murtha].
  This has just been a joy to work with this committee this year 
because of the fairness of it, and I just want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Florida on bringing to the floor today a bill that I 
believe is responsible and deserves the overall support of every Member 
of this House, and for the staff who have worked very closely with us 
on some very critical issues.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank him for his work on this bill 
and for his leadership that has brought us here to the House floor 
today, and I would recommend an ``aye'' vote on the entire bill.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my 
distinguished colleague from Wisconsin, [Mr. Obey] to strike $331 
million to begin advance procurement for nine additional B-2 bombers.
  Now, I have listened to the debate thus far and, first, let me 
establish hopefully some bona fides in this debate. I am now completing 
my 27th year in the House of Representatives, nearly 25 of them serving 
on what in the past had been referred to as the House Armed Services 
Committee, and now the House Committee on National Security, 
authorizing committee, where we debate these matters substantively on 
the basis of policy. In that regard, I would like to say that while 
this is the appropriations bill, this is indeed the appropriate 
opportunity for us to end this madness.
  Now, first of all, Mr. Chairman, how many times have we in this 
country heard of the ultimate weapon? How many times has this Nation 
been in search of the ultimate weapon to prevent war? And the ultimate 
weapon, I would suggest, does not root itself in some technology built 
in some particular State in some particular district, deriving billions 
of dollars in that area. That is not our greatest strength. That is not 
the ultimate weapon.
  Our ultimate weapon is our capacity to use our minds to deter war, as 
we sit around a table to negotiate nonviolently and politically and 
diplomatically how we will live with each other. Our future is not 
vested in some B-2 bomber. That is absurd, ludicrous and ridiculous, 
and we need to abandon that mentality that in some way the future of 
our children and our children's children is locked in some technology 
built by some manufacturer that ultimately will derive billions of 
dollars to do it.
  Now, what is the bottom line, Mr. Chairman? The bottom line is that 
this is not about B-2's. I underscore, it is not about B-2's. We have 
B-2s. We have 21 of them. Where on Earth do we need to fly more than 21 
B-2's?
  Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues that when President Bush 
went to war in the Persian Gulf, he told the American people he was 
moving against the fourth largest army in the world. Within a matter of 
hours, we had conquered airspace and conquered these people. We never 
used one B-2.
  Where, Mr. Chairman? The Soviets have reduced their military budget 
by 80 percent, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] already 
pointed out. If we are going to do battle with China, it will be 
economics, it will not be firing missiles at each other. I would like 
to think we have moved beyond that bizarre and absurd set of ideas. We 
have 21 of these planes. That is more than enough.
  Now, one of my colleagues said that when the President funded the 
21st plane that meant we were starting down the road toward the third 
squadron. I would suggest, at a bare minimum, that that is hyperbole.
  How did we get to the 21st plane? Mr. Chairman, we had a prototype B-
2 plane. A prototype. The first prototype B-2, hand built. It was not 
operational. A decision was made, rightly or wrongly, to take several 
hundred million dollars to make that 21st prototype nonoperational 
plane operational. Nothing was said that we will take this plane and 
move down the road toward 30 of them.
  Now, if Members want to argue that, they are arguing that from self-
interest, a little bit disingenuous, because it was never stated and 
never said. This is not about B-2's. We have them. It is about what the 
Congressional Budget Office refers to as a $27 billion, not million, 
$27 billion program.

                              {time}  1145

  It is $13.6 billion of it that is in procurement; $13.2 billion of it 
in operation, maintenance equipment, et cetera, $26.8 billion.
  The Comptroller, Office of the Pentagon determines it as close to $21 
billion. In the letter that talks about vetoing this bill, if the B-2 
is in it, they refer it as a $20 billion expenditure.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dellums was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DELLUMS. So this is not about B-2. We have them. It is about an 
extraordinary amount of money.
  Now, as I said, the CBO costed out at $27 billion to build nine. The 
Comptroller, $21 billion. Let us look at the budget. Mr. Chairman, if 
you will recall, the budget resolution that we are about to agree to, 
all the newspaper headlines, great deal, balanced budget is now being 
addressed. In that balanced budget, there was $17.5 billion of 
additional money for the Department of Defense over and above the 
President's request during the 5 years of this so-called balanced 
budget, $17.5 billion.
  Now, the unbudgeted Quadrennial Defense Review has already claimed 
the $17.5 billion and will claim the entire portion of it. My 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], 
earlier in the context of the debate on the rule, pointed out that 
there was some $20 billion slush fund, referred to as the weapon 
procurement reserve fund, that they could magically take this $13.6 
billion out of that fund to fund this additional B-2.
  But they say nothing about where they are going to get the 13.2 down 
the road. But let us talk about the 13.6. This was an item placed in 
the 5-year defense plan that would not appear in the budget next year 
because what this fund was established to do was to look at the 
problems of underfunding in the weapon procurement account that would 
come about as a result of the Quadrennial Defense Review.
  Now let us look at how they are going to spend this money. Listen up, 
people. The V-22. How many people in this Chamber have been telling the 
marines, we are committed to the V-22? Part of this money goes to fund 
the V-22. How many people?
  The second item, the Army 21 force program, how many officers have 
said to the Army, we agree with you on the force 21 program. Part of 
this money is to defund that. Full funding for the national missile 
defense. How many times have we paraded into these Chambers to discuss 
national missile defense? It was part of the Contract With America. 
Numerous discussions and debate about funding the national missile 
defense.
  The administration came before our committee and said that we are 
between $2 billion and $3 billion underfunded minimally in our national 
missile defense program. Part of that

[[Page H5946]]

money is going to come out of this program. They even, in response to a 
question of mine, ``Will the program be fully funded if we give you the 
$2.7 or $2.8 billion?'' They said, ``maybe not.'' So they made some 
additional play for those who have frightened the American people about 
national missile defense, where do you think the funding is going to 
come in that program? Right out of this fund that you are getting ready 
to get committed to spend for nine additional B-2's.
  For those who think that we ought to be demilitarizing these chemical 
weapons, how many millions of American people live around these weapons 
around the country that we ought to be demilitarizing because they are 
dangerous? That program will be fully funded as a result of taking 
money out of this reserve fund. So this is no slush fund.
  Medical programs. For those who believe that weapons of mass 
destruction and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is one 
of the most dangerous issues that we confront, and we know that is the 
case, anyone who is diligently about their job in the Congress of the 
United States knows that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 
and terrorism are the two major issues confronting us today, that 
program will be funded out of this account.
  Let us move forward. What are the trade-offs? Mr. Chairman, what are 
the trade-offs? I did mention on numerous occasions that, in the 
context of a balanced budget, the world has changed. This is not some 
magical fund. I would like to think that I have spoken to that and 
prepared to speak to it even further. But let us talk about the reality 
that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] spoke of.
  This is a balanced budget environment. And when we have a balanced 
budget and we are talking about $13.6 billion in that 5 years, 
ultimately $27 billion but $13.6 billion in the 5 years, and we are 
pushing that money in the budget, we have got to push something out of 
the budget. So what are the trade-offs?
  The B-2 proponents recommending trading off tack air, F-22, FA-18 and 
the joint strike fighter.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, 
under our reservation, I would like to point out to my very 
distinguished friend that we have made these arguments time after time 
after time after time, and the business of the House is being delayed 
now.
  There are other Members who want to speak. And I am not going to 
object, but I think we all ought to pay attention to the fact that the 
gentleman has already used 10 minutes now. He controlled considerable 
time when we had this debate on the authorization bill, where he is the 
ranking member. And I just think that we really ought to be considering 
a time limitation, because nothing new is being said. We are rehashing 
the same arguments over and over again. And while I will not object to 
this additional request for time, I would put the Members on notice 
that I will object to other Members who would ask for additional time 
over and above their 5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Further reserving the right to object, I yield 
to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to be fair here now in terms 
of the time. I would hope that my colleague is going to let the other 
side at least have a chance to have the time, at least myself, the same 
amount of time that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] had, 
because he had made a lot of accusations here today, some of which are 
true, and I would like a chance to rebut them.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my suggestion is, and it is 
something that I suggested earlier, that we set a specific amount of 
time, have it managed and controlled by the proponents and the 
opponents, so we can get to the end of this debate sometime today.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the proponents had time to go here for 10 
minutes, a lot more time than the opponents thus far. So I would like 
us to balance it out before we go to a time agreement, if the gentleman 
would possibly agree to that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the author of the 
amendment if he would be interested in discussing a possible time 
limitation with the time managed?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that we are being asked to 
spend about $300 billion. And it seems to me that this is not out of 
line to spend approximately half an hour listening to the arguments 
against the expenditure of the item under review on this amendment.
  I would simply say that I know that the manager of this bill would 
like to see the House finish this bill with very little debate, but the 
fact is this is an appropriation bill, the Congress is exercising the 
power of the purse. We may make one decision on an authorization bill 
when real dollars are not in hand, but when we are on an appropriation 
bill, this is when we actually get to see what the trade offs are.
  It seems to me that it is not too much to expect. I mean, as far as I 
know, there are only about four speakers against this. They are going 
to win the amendment. But it seems to me that we have a right to have a 
reasonable amount of time to make the arguments against it.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] is only the ranking 
member on the authorizing committee. He only knows more about this than 
probably anyone else on the floor. And given the fact that we have 
spent hours and hours on the legislative appropriations bill and other 
appropriation bills, I see no harm in spending less time on this bill 
in the end than we would have spent on virtually every other 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I do not know. So I assume the gentleman's 
answer is negative on limiting time?
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield, I know of only one other 
speaker on our side of the aisle.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I will not object to this time 
extension. But I think we need to make sure that both sides get fair 
treatment on time. And we want to say again, under our reservation, we 
have debated this over and over and over again. And the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] has spent at least half an hour himself during 
the last debate. And the gentleman is correct, he is very knowledgeable 
on the issues. Although he is wrong most of the time, he is very 
knowledgeable on these national defense issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I may suggest this time limitation depending on how 
this plays out.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] is 
recognized for 5 additional minutes.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate the gentleman's 
gratuitous shot.
  Second, one point on which I agree with the gentleman, we ought to 
all be paying attention. I have been in this Congress where we debated 
for days on emotional amendments, $5 million amendments, $1 million 
amendments. Here is an amendment that has a $27 billion tail, and 
suddenly we do not have time to deal with it.
  That is why I am getting paid. We ought to be debating these issues, 
rightly or wrongly. We talk out here about America being a place where 
different points of view clash with each other. I believe in the 
integrity of the process. We may have different politics. I accept your 
politics, and I accept my colleague's. That is how we got elected to be 
here. But one place where we ought to be all coming together is that 
the process ought to have integrity and we ought to be able to slow 
this train down to be able to debate.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] pointed out, this is a multi-
hundred-billion-dollar deal. So we want to rush it through for 
convenience because it is a nice and neat package?

[[Page H5947]]

 And then we will run home to our town meetings and talk about how 
diligent we are as we carry out our fiduciary responsibilities. How 
obscene.
  We need to slow this process down and debate each other, talk with 
these issues. I am prepared to debate. Five studies most recently did 
not make a case for the B-2. Five studies, all independent most 
recently. The B-1 bomber can fly as far as the B-2. We have gone 
through all of that.
  The gentleman talks about crisis responsibility. Listen to this: This 
weapons system, these additional nine B-2's are going to be so 
important? Do my colleagues know how long it would take us to build 
nine B-2's to get them into the inventory? Ten years.
  So my colleagues make this frightening, scary case to the American 
people, but they do not tell them it is going to take 10 years. So if 
this is such an important insurance policy, this is going to save so 
many people, then what do we do over the 10-year period? Do we pray?
  Let us not be so disingenuous. Additional B-2's are going to take 10 
years. Here is a plane in search of a problem. We have 21 of them. B-
1's can reach any place in the globe without being locked out for want 
of a forward base. And look, we have 95 of them. Some of the 95 B-1 
bombers are so brand new that the tires have maybe only hit the ground 
once or twice.
  We spent $20 billion, $20.5 billion building 100 B-1 bombers. And all 
of a sudden, we do not want to talk about the B-1. That is the 
stealthiest plane in the inventory. Nobody wants to talk about them. We 
talk about the B-52 and the B-2, as if the B-1 is not there. My 
colleagues have argued and made the case and we bought 100 of them. We 
have 95 of them. It is not the platform, it is the weapon. It is not 
the platform, it is the weapon. We put smart weapons on a B-1, smart 
weapons on 21 B-2's. We do not need to buy additional expensive 
platforms that will cost each platform in excess of a billion dollars.
  How many children can we educate for over $1 billion? How many people 
can we save for over $1 billion? What can we do with $27 billion? It 
staggers the imagination to talk about the brilliance and genius and 
compassion of what we can do with $27 billion. But, no, we want to sink 
it into nine B-2 bombers, as if that is God's gift to the planet. 
Bizarre and extreme.
  Finally, some people say we need to build nine more B-2's, Mr. 
Chairman, because we must reserve the industrial base. An absurd 
notion. There is no such thing as a bomber industrial base. The people 
that built the B-2 did not build the B-1. The people that built the B-1 
did not build the B-52. The people that built the B-52 did not build 
the bomber before that. All we have to do is be able to build a plane 
and we can build a bomber.
  So what is all this about? This is about jobs. This is a restart, not 
an industrial base preservation. Air Force sources have estimated that 
the production capability for the B-2 is no more than 30 percent today. 
Only 16 percent of the personnel, 16 percent of the personnel, required 
to produce nine B-2's are currently on the program. This is according 
to contractor data.

                              {time}  1200

  Finally, many vendors and suppliers began exiting this program in 
1992. They are gone, they have left the place. This is to reassemble.
  If we want to generate jobs in America, how many jobs could we 
generate with $27 billion? Incredible. Absolutely extraordinary, Mr. 
Chairman. But we do not do it with nine more B-2's. I ask my colleagues 
to support this amendment, oppose nine additional B-2's. It is the 
rational, sane, and fiduciary thing to do.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I served on the Committee on National Security my first 
three terms here and served with the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums]. He is an honorable man. We disagree on issues, but he has 
always been fair and he debates well. That is not my issue.
  The issue is how I see it on why we need not only the B-2 but the 
defense structure that we have. I do not expect to change the 
opponents' minds by my 5 minutes. But I would like to express to them 
why I feel that it is important and at least have them have that 
understanding.
  First of all, I think it is fair to say, why did we order the B-2 in 
the first place? Was there a perceived mission for it? Did the Air 
Force want the airplane? The answer is yes.
  Second, is there still today a perceived mission for the B-2 and the 
B-1? The answer is yes. And is there one in the future? I also say yes. 
I will be specific in just a moment. I think if we take a look at what 
the threat is today in the areas that we could have gone into, whether 
it is Desert Storm, whether it is North Korea, whether it is different 
areas, without having to cost the additional expense of massing forces, 
when Saddam Hussein rattles his ugly sword and makes a strike, can we 
do that effectively and save billions of dollars by using a B-2 strike 
instead of having to mass all of our forces and then back away if 
nothing happens? The answer is yes.
  Second, if we do not build the B-2 today, then what? The cost of 
then-year dollars, the R&D dollars out into the future is so expensive 
to build a new airplane and to invest in a new airplane, it would cost 
much more.
  Russia today, I would say to my friend, not tomorrow, is building 
today a first strike nuclear site under the Ural Mountains the size of 
inside the beltway in Washington D.C. Why, when they already have one 
to the northeast? A nuclear threat to the United States, supposedly an 
ally. Anyone who would think Russia is our ally or China is our ally is 
mistaken, in my opinion.
  Second, let us look at what the real threat is to our aviators who 
are going to be asked to fly in those particular airplanes. I have some 
charts. These are the nations where fighters are proliferated. These 
airplanes right here, the SU-27, the SU-35, and the SU-37. Let us take 
a scenario of taking a Strike Eagle, an F-15 Strike Eagle. By the way, 
the Air Force has not bought a new fighter in 25 years, while the 
development of all of these countries are advancing their procurement 
and their R&D. They have advanced farther than we have, in stealth and 
in missile technology and airframe.
  If we take a Strike Eagle or an F-14D, two of our best fighters, and 
match them up with an SU-27, an SU-35, or a -37 that has a big radar, 
their radar sees those airplanes first. They have big giant radars. 
They are very fast. They are very maneuverable. The AA-12 missile gets 
there faster and further than our AMRAAM. Our guys are going to die. 
That is why we need the F-22.
  Let us take a F-22 that they do not see as well because it is more 
stealthy, or the B-2. We get inside that envelope, we get first shot, 
and the bad guys are going to die first. These are the countries that 
have those airplanes.
  Let us take an F-22 flying with a B-2 or a B-1. This bad guy over 
here is going to tell exactly where our fighters are because that B-2 
is going to tell him it is a big aluminum fog in the sky and he is 
going to see it, he is going to know where we are. Again, our pilots 
are going to die, not the bad guys. If we take the B-2 with an F-22, he 
gets in unobserved, can get to the target, can knock it out or the B-2 
can get in there by himself and save billions of dollars.
  These again are the countries that have the missiles, the AA-12. I 
have flown most of these airplanes. If Members want to talk about the 
maneuverability, go to the Paris Air Show and look at the SU-37 and 
take a look at the vector thrust. They are better than our fighters, 
the B-2's and the threat of the bombers are better than ours, and we 
need to know.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following material for the Record:

                  Countries With Advanced AAM in 2005

                          AMRAAM, MICA, AA-12

     Russia
     Belgium
     France
     Malaysia
     Spain
     Turkey
     Germany
     Netherlands
     Sweden
     UK
     China
     Israel
     Norway
     Switzerland
     Denmark
     Taiwan
     Finland
     Japan
     South Korea
     U.A.E.

                 Countries With Advanced SAM's in 2005

                 Patriot, SA-10, or SA-12 SAM's by 2005

     Azerbaijan
     Belarus
     China \1\
     Cyprus
     Czech Republic
     Kazakhstan
     Bulgaria
     India
     Kuwait
     Italy
     Iran
     Russia \1\
     Ukraine \1\
     Germany \1\
     Israel
     Moldova
     Netherlands
     Japan \1\
     Saudi Arabia
     Serbia
     South Korea
     Syria \1\
     Turkmenistan
     \1\ Countries projected to have more than one type.
     Source: Jane's, Aviation Week, DMS Market Intel.

[[Page H5948]]

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just give a little perspective on this. First of 
all, the gentleman from California says that nobody supports this. I do 
not quite agree with that. We have seven former Secretaries of Defense, 
Melvin Laird, Jim Schlesinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Harold Brown, Caspar 
Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, and Dick Cheney, who wrote the President a 
letter on January 4, 1995. In that letter they said this:

       The B-2 was originally conceived to be the Nation's next 
     generation bomber, and it remains the most cost effective 
     means of rapidly projecting force over great distances. Its 
     range will enable it to reach any point on earth within hours 
     after launch while being deployed at only 3 secure bases 
     around the world. Its payload and array of munitions will 
     permit it to destroy numerous time sensitive targets in a 
     single sortie and, perhaps most importantly, its low 
     observable characteristics will allow it to reach intended 
     targets without fear of interception. The logic of continuing 
     low rate production of the B-2 thus is both fiscal and 
     operational. It is already apparent that the end of the Cold 
     War was neither the end of history nor the end of danger. We 
     hope it will also not be the end of the B-2. We urge you to 
     consider the purchase of more such aircraft while the options 
     still exist.

  Mr. Chairman, what bothers me about the administration's program is 
this: They want to invest $300 billion for TAC air and zero for 
bombers. That just does not make any sense. The B-2 was just used in 
terms of operational testing using GATS/GAM, and they can hit targets 
day, night, all weather, without lasers, from 41,000 feet. That is a 
remarkable capability.
  In the future when we get the smart submunitions like sensor-fused 
weapon, GATOR mine, et cetera, combined effects munition, I believe we 
will have the potential for conventional deterrence. I want to explain 
that. I think frankly nuclear weapons are only good for nuclear 
deterrence. We saw Saddam Hussein come south. We had 18 Trident 
submarines. He still came south. But if we have a bomber that can go a 
third of the way around the world with one aerial refueling and can be 
utilized immediately to stop the enemy from coming into, say, Kuwait, 
that is conventional deterrence. President Bush could have deployed the 
B-2's to Diego Garcia, they could have been operational immediately.
  What does that mean? It means that we stop the enemy from achieving 
his objectives. That is what the halt phase is all about. If we can do 
that, then we could have saved the taxpayers the $10 billion it cost us 
to move 500,000 troops out to the gulf and we could have saved the $60 
billion that we spent, we and our allies, on funding the war in the 
gulf. And the B-2, to purchase these additional nine airplanes will be 
somewhere between $11 billion and $13 billion. I think it is a wise, 
prudent investment.
  The gentleman from California makes the strongest argument about why 
we should do it now. He says that if we do now, it is going to take 10 
years to build these aircraft. You just do not go out and immediately 
get additional B-2's. It takes a long time to do a new bomber R&D 
program and it is very, very expensive.
  So we want to buy the right number of planes while the line is still 
open, and the line is still open in southern California. Sometimes the 
gentleman makes it sound like it is in Bremerton, WA, but it is not. It 
is in southern California. That is why I think that we ought to do it 
now. We can get the planes for less money, they will be less expensive 
and I think it is the right thing to do.
  The gentleman also talks like the war in the gulf was a slam dunk. 
The war in the gulf was not a slam dunk. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] is sitting here, our ranking member. He saw 
an errant Scud missile kill a number of his constituents. Had they had 
accurate Scud missiles in the gulf, our 500,000 American troops would 
have been vulnerable. They would have been vulnerable to attack either 
by chemical, biological weapons, nuclear weapons; they could have been 
destroyed in the field.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the reason they could have been destroyed in 
the field is because of those Scuds. With the F-22 and the B-2, we 
finally will have a capability using Link-16 from space, from our 
satellites, to immediately target those Scud launchers. We will be able 
to go after them and we will be able to destroy them. We still need to 
do theater missile defense. That is the other critical component in 
order to protect our troops in the field.
  I think this new revolution in stealth gives us an advantage. Why is 
21 the wrong number? Twenty-one is the wrong number because in the 
early going, in that first 2 weeks of any war, it is sortie rate, it is 
how fast we can take that bomber, fly it in, drop those 16 smart bombs 
or those smart submunitions on the enemy and fly back out.
  With 21 we simply cannot generate enough sorties to take advantage of 
the capability, and utilize the potential of this stealthy, long-range 
bomber with smart inexpensive weapons. So getting up to a higher level 
gives us more capability. We would be able to commit 20 to a major 
regional contingency; we would have 10 in reserve for a second major 
regional contingency.
  I want to say something else. This Congress should never be ashamed 
to stand up to the Pentagon and say they are wrong. We did it on the F-
117's. The gentleman says the B-2's were not there. General Hoerner 
said if they had been there, and it was because they were not ready to 
be deployed yet, if they had been there, he would have used them just 
as he used the 117's.
  We had 27 additional 117's because this Congress had the guts to 
stand up and do what was right for the country. Under the Constitution 
of the United States that is our responsibility, not to just take what 
they give us. We have stood up to them before. We made them buy 
additional Sealift. They would not have had any roll-on/roll-off ships 
to go to the gulf if it had not been for Congress and this committee. 
That is why we have to from time to time stand up and do what is right 
for the security of this country.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me even add to that point. When I worked in the 
Pentagon, the Navy never ordered A-6's. They prayed that Congress would 
add them just to keep the line on so we could perpetuate it. Members 
can talk to General Fogleman or the Air Force generals, they pray that 
we will add this.
  Yes, there are budgetary constraints. They asked for the B-2 in the 
first place because it had a mission. With the White House and other 
constraints cutting defense, there are limited dollars. But they want 
the B-2 for the mission because they know it is applicable and it is 
going to save pilots' lives.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California, the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement of 
the Committee on National Security.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I think the point that we need to be able 
to have a large inventory of long-range aircraft is very, very 
essential in this debate. In 1962, we had 81 major overseas air bases 
that we could fly short-range aircraft out of. That 81 major overseas 
air base inventory is now down to 14.
  Just a couple of weeks ago, the Japanese diplomats were hedging on 
whether they would allow us to use Japanese air bases for a second 
Korea contingency. Now if we overlay that fact, the shrinking bases 
overseas, with the fact that we are going to spend $350 billion on 
short-range aircraft, and the administration zeroing B-2 has not a dime 
for long-range aircraft, it does not make any sense. We have got to 
have the ability to strike from the United States.
  And last, I would say to my colleague I thought the most dramatic 
speech in the debate, the lengthy debate we had in the authorization 
process, was when Sam Johnson, POW in Hanoi, looked out through the 
Hanoi Hilton and saw three B-52's in Operation Linebacker. That is when 
we struck the North Vietnamese in 11 days and brought them to the 
negotiating table; he watched three

[[Page H5949]]

B-52's destroyed, blown up in midair. Those are the planes that the 
administration is going to rely on for the next 40 years. According to 
their plan, they are going to use aircraft that were vulnerable 30 
years ago.
  So we have to ask the question what is the alternative. There is not 
an alternative to the B-2.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I will not request any additional time, and 
I wanted to say to my colleague from California, both colleagues from 
California, this last statement is the most important one. What we 
really have here is a wonderful opportunity to save American lives in 
the future.
  Again the gentleman from California makes the case when he says it 
was easy with air power in the gulf to defeat the enemy once we stopped 
them, but Saddam stopped himself. What if he had not stopped? We need a 
capability to stop him which the B-2 will give us because it can react 
and go anywhere in the world without having to have escort aircraft.
  But when it gets right down to it, when those marines came in and the 
RPV's were there and the guys came running out to surrender to our 
RPV's, what it meant was they had been bombed into oblivion because we 
had total control of the air and we had the right bombers. The B-2's 
give us greater accuracy, they give us greater capability. It is a much 
more lethal bomber than the B-52 and the B-1 because it can operate by 
itself.
  And so my point is what this is really about is saving American lives 
in the future, and that is why this is so important, and that is why 
this Congress cannot fold under pressure from a Pentagon that simply 
wants to take care of the services. We need some real thinking about 
the future. We need to take advantage of our technological advantage--
the B-2 represents that advantage.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Small point: The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam 
Johnson, saw three B-52's blow up. Those were shot down by SA-2 Fansong 
radar in an old technology, post-Korean vintage. Today they have got 
SA-3 surface-to-air missile, all the way through about 19, and the 
advanced technology. We were successful in Desert Storm with the 117 
because we could go over downtown Baghdad and not be seen. That is what 
the B-2 brings to this, instead of the loss of lives, much more 
efficiency, not only the cost of training pilots, but aircraft and our 
effectiveness in combat, and that is what we call national security.
  Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was actually in my office listening to this debate, 
and it took me back to the research project I did when I was first in 
Congress about 2 years ago and then the request for briefing after 
briefing on all the technology, all the smart weapons, we might say, 
and I learned to admire many of my colleagues who had worked so hard to 
make sure that those smart weapons were there, smart weapons like the 
B-2, and the B-2 being one that does not risk as many American lives, 
gets in, gets the job done.
  But then I got to the point of finding out how many are enough, and I 
have listened to the debate, and I think the important thing for me was 
I looked back to the original debate over how many B-2's would be 
enough from the beginning. It was 10, then it was 20. We have now 21 in 
some level of construction, not all of them done, most of them not 
ready for flight, and we are already starting to say we need 9 more. I 
have been told they are needed because we want to keep some of the 
construction on, and these will be the ones we begin in 2002.
  As I look at the priorities before us, it has been real hard for me 
because I have since the early 1980's, unlike some of my colleagues 
arguing for this amendment, I have been a hawk; I am very strong, very 
strong pro defense. I was a Democrat turned Republican over the peace 
through strength movement in the early 1980's, came in because of 
Ronald Reagan. And so when I looked at this I thought is America going 
to be stronger, safer? Are we going to be able to save more American 
lives if we have 9 on top of the 21?
  My briefings did not show me that we needed another nine; very hard 
when I stand here with people I admire so much who have fought so 
strong for a national defense, but I have to respectfully disagree.
  When it comes to priorities and balancing the budget, I believe we 
have to have a strong America, but we have to balance the budget. I 
believe that this amendment simply says that some of the money, a very 
small amount, $50 million, will be there for breast cancer research in 
the military department.
  In looking at this particular program as someone that does not 
necessarily believe just because we give somebody money they are going 
to do something good with it, I found it is the most effective, the 
most efficient, good for the military families, and this is somewhere 
else I go. I believe that good strong military medical, good strong 
research for America, all ties together. It does not have to be more 
bombers.
  So with that I would conclude and just say I support this amendment 
because I just have to respectfully disagree. I believe right now we 
are on the verge of discovering more about breast cancer and cancer, 
and the research has been sorely underfunded. This could save lives 
immediately, not maybe after 2002; and by the way, it takes a long time 
to develop those planes. We are way into 2010 before we start talking 
about anything being used. If we had a war, it is many, many years 
before we would use them if we ever needed them, but breast cancer is 
killing people right now.
  So with that, I would ask Members to support this amendment and 
support a strong national defense.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
time remaining in the discussion on this amendment be limited to 20 
minutes, 10 minutes to be controlled by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] and 10 minutes to be controlled by myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman include all amendments thereto?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Including any amendments thereto.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, if I might, 
I would just ask the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] if he thinks 
that is enough time to accommodate this side to make their 
presentations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is enough time. I mean we cannot 
give everyone who wants to speak 5 minutes, but we can give them a good 
amount of time to speak. I think it is adequate. I only know of two 
people who want to speak on our side.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] each will control 10 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the 
amendment, the gentleman takes some of the money out of this account 
and makes it available for breast cancer research. I was just wondering 
does that prohibit other kinds of cancer research, in the case of 
prostate cancer research, and does the bill allow for that?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would point out the bill already contains a 
small appropriation for prostate cancer research as well, and I would 
certainly have no objection if in conference this is reallocated so we 
can provide additional funding for both breast cancer research and 
prostate research.

[[Page H5950]]

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I 
rise in strong support of the amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and thank him for the way he 
has conducted this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, let me issue my dissent, my objection, to what I think 
is one of the cruelest tradeoffs that can ever been offered on the 
House floor, and it has been offered here, and that is the idea that if 
we do not build B-2's, somehow we are going to spend the money on a lot 
of happy areas like breast cancer research and other attractive areas 
that all of us, as Members of Congress, want to fund. That is a 
tradeoff of guns for butter.
  As my colleagues know, I am reminded, when I visit my aunt and 
uncle's house in Fort Worth, TX; there is a picture on the mantle, and 
that picture is one of my second cousins who was killed in Korea, Son 
Stillwell. He was killed in Korea, one of some 50,000 KIA there in a 
war that we were not prepared to fight because a previous Congress, a 
Congress after World War II, did not want to spend the money for a 
strong national defense, and we had all the same answers that have been 
given here today as to why we do not need a robust B-2 force.
  Things are going well. No enemy on the horizon. In those days we said 
we have a nuclear weapon, we will never see another military take us 
on, certainly the North Koreans and the Chinese would not take us on.
  If my colleagues read the then Secretary of Defense's testimony a few 
months before the North Koreans invaded, we had all of the happy talk 
about a smaller downsized force; only Omar Bradley had the guts to come 
before Congress and say, ``We can't win a major war.''
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, we do not serve our people well, 
all those people who are interested in breast cancer research, and a 
good life and educational opportunities, unless we defend them.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, just in case somebody does not think there 
is money in this bill, there is $125 million in this bill for breast 
cancer research already.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his point, and it 
is a good point. We have taken care of many of these other areas that 
have been discussed that have been offered up as an attractive 
alternative to having some bomber power.
  But as my colleagues know, General Fogleman is going out. One of his 
sins in Washington, DC, I think, was being extremely candid. I asked 
him in a hearing whether the B-2 was valuable because the word coming 
from the other side, from the political side, of the administration was 
we do not want B-2's, and being good soldiers, all of our chiefs then 
go down the line, they sit in front of us at the dais, and they stand 
behind the administration's political position on any particular weapon 
system. And he said this. He said:
  ``I didn't say the B-2 wasn't valuable. The B-2 is extremely 
valuable, especially in the halt phase of a war, that you stop the 
enemy before you have a lot of casualties, before you send home a lot 
of your people in body bags.''
  And then he hesitated, and he said:
  ``In fact it is valuable in all phases of the war.''
  And I said, ``General Fogleman, would it save American lives to have 
a robust B-2 force?''
  And he said, ``Yes.''
  So the point is there is not a body of military opinion over there 
that says this is not a valuable system. It is a valuable system. We 
need to support this important program.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members of Congress to take a hard 
look at reality, at what really is going on in this country. Do we want 
the United States to have the strongest military in the world? I think 
we do. Do we already have that capability? Have we already, along with 
our other NATO allies, greatly, greatly, many times overspent all of 
our potential enemies? And the answer is yes.
  I ask my friends who are opposing the Obey-Dellums amendment to think 
about priorities. If they want the strongest military in the world, OK; 
but are they happy with the fact that we have by far the highest rate 
of childhood poverty in the industrialized world? Is that something 
that Members of this Congress should be proud of? Should we be talking 
about spending over a period of years $27 billion more for B-2 bombers, 
and then telling millions of kids who are ill-fed, ill-housed, ill-
educated, that in this great Nation we do not have the resources to 
help them, but we can build B-2 bombers? My answer is, no, those are 
absurd priorities.
  There are people here who day after day talk about the national debt 
and our deficit. They say we have to cut back on Medicare and Medicaid 
and education. Let me tell them, spending $27 billion for B-2 bombers 
also runs up the national debt. That is real money.
  Recently we have been talking about major cutbacks in Medicare, $115 
billion. There are some who say we should charge low-income senior 
citizens $5 for every home health care visit, which can amount to some 
$700 a year for a low-income senior citizen trying to get by on $9,000 
a year. People say, yes, that is what we have to do to balance the 
budget. Then the next thing, they come back and say, oh, yes, but we 
can spend $27 billion for B-2 bombers. I think those are very false 
priorities.
  Let us talk about job creation. All of us want job creation in 
America. Do Members know how we can do it? We can do it by putting more 
money into school construction. We can do it by building roads and 
bridges and protecting our infrastructure, which is falling apart all 
over America. We can do this by educating more people.
  When we talk about national priorities, let us understand, there are 
millions of middle-class families who today cannot afford to send their 
kids to college. What we are saying to those people is no, we do not 
have enough money to make sure that your kids can go to college so they 
can make it into the middle class, but yes, no problem, over a period 
of time we can build nine more B-2 bombers that the Pentagon says they 
do not want, for a cost of $27 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to understand that we are 
playing with a zero-sum game. We just cannot print more and more money. 
Let us get our priorities straight. Let us support the Dellums-Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for yielding 
time to me, and thank him for the good work he has done on bringing 
this bill to the floor and on this ongoing debate that we constantly 
have on the B-2 bomber.
  I have not yet heard the other side, those in opposition, who are so 
strong in their opposition to this plane, what they figure we would use 
if we did not have this plane. I know there has been some talk of 
possibly another kind of bomber somewhere down the road, but there has 
been, what, $15 billion, $20 billion spent on R&D on this plane. I 
cannot see anyone here in this body that would begin to propose $15 
billion to $20 billion R&D to build a new aircraft. This is the 
cheapest plane we could buy at this time.
  This is the only plane that has a production line, even though it is 
now being closed up, that does have a production line, one that the 
manpower is there, the technology is there; and we are in the process 
of taking this apart, wasting all of that money that was spent. I think 
that is something that really, it would be wonderful if we could look 
into the future and say no, we will never need another long-range 
bomber. We need to stand up and defend this plane to defend our service 
people.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.

[[Page H5951]]

  First, Mr. Chairman, let me say this: This has not been a debate. 
This is a very complex issue. It takes some time to lay the basis of 
the foundation of the arguments on either side. But once we spend 
enough time laying down the basis of our respective positions, allowing 
us to clash and debate with each other, someone jumps up and says we 
spent too much time. This has not been a debate. We end up with a 
triumph of process over substance. I think that is tragic. These are 
dark days in the Congress when we cannot engage each other in 
constructive and important debate.
  Mr. Chairman, with the time that I have remaining, let me just make a 
few rebuttal arguments. First, I would like to remind my colleagues, we 
are building 21 of these planes. It is not zero. We are building 21 of 
these planes. For anyone to attempt to suggest to the American people 
that there is great magic in going from 21 to 30 is bizarre in the 
extreme, particularly when that step takes us $27 billion down the 
road.
  Do we have an inventory of bombers? Yes, sir. We have 95 B-1's, 
extraordinarily well equipped. In fact, they can take more of these 
precision-guided smart weapons than even the B-2 can, plus 21 B-2's, 
plus additional upgraded B-52 bombers. So we have a major bomber force 
out there. Where are we going to fly them? Who are we flying them 
against?
  We talk as if we have zero. We are the greatest superpower standing. 
Our military budget equals the military budget of every other Nation on 
the face of the Earth combined. When we put our allies into that 
equation, America and its friends outspend the rest of the world 4 to 
1. That is reality.
  Mr. Chairman, another point. Former Secretary of Defense William 
Perry, the father of the B-2 bomber, opposed additional B-2's because 
he knew what we were giving up in order to purchase more B-2's. Former 
Secretary of Defense Cheney was the one that struck the deal on 20.
  The next point, people keep walking up to the microphone saying, we 
have had this debate over and over. It was supposed to be over at 20. 
This gentleman did not start the debate. It is the people who represent 
the contractors who want to keep bringing this weapon system forward. 
The administration is not asking for it, the Joint Chiefs are not 
asking for it. Nobody is asking for it except the contractors and a few 
Members of Congress; so few willing to spend so much money, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Finally, I would ask my colleagues to approach this matter with a 
degree of fiduciary responsibility that is required by the moment. This 
is a balanced budget environment. This is a zero-sum game. You cannot 
create money out here. If you push this program in, you are going to 
push something out. You are going to hurt some people. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding to me. I would just like to respond by way of comment to the 
question of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  I, too, thought the question was over at 20, and then just before the 
election the President asked for the 21st. I thought he was getting a 
new understanding that a third squadron might be helpful, so it seems 
to me we ought to revisit this issue. I appreciate my colleague raising 
the question.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me say this: This debate on the B-2 has 
been a long, difficult debate. I can understand my colleagues who think 
it is going to hurt something. But my view of this is that of 
everything we are doing at the Pentagon today, not one other weapons 
system has the potential capability to deter war as does the B-2. Take 
this platform that is stealthy, that can go one-third of the way around 
the world and stop the enemy from achieving their objectives, and that 
is a remarkable capability.
  What are the weapons we are going to use on this? J-DAMS at $13,000. 
If we do not have the B-2's, then we have to use the B-52's with 
standoff cruise missiles that cost $1.2 million per weapon--16 times 
$13,000 is $208,000, versus $1.2 million. You get 16 weapons on a B-2 
for the cost of one-sixth of one cruise missile. It is ridiculous. This 
will save us money over time. And you can fly in over the target and 
knock out 16 separate targets in one sortie. In World War II, it took 
3,000 sorties in order to be able to achieve that objective.
  This is a revolution in technology. What it gives us is an 
asymmetrical capability to stop the enemy before they achieve their 
objective. What does that mean? It saves American lives. It saves 
American lives.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I say to my friend, the gentleman from 
California, I supported the B-1, but the B-1 is not stealthy. It has to 
have escort aircraft. It cannot go out the first day without being 
vulnerable to being shot down, just as the B-52's will be shot down. 
That is why we have to have some number of long-range stealthy bombers 
to stop aggression, whether it is North Korea, whether it is Iran, 
whether it is Iraq, whether it is something in China. We do not know 
what the future holds, but every time we have been weak before, we have 
gotten ourselves into trouble. Here is a capability that gives us an 
advantage that no other country possesses.
  Yet, we are going to walk away from it and say well, we have enough. 
We do not have enough. Every expert who has looked at this, all 
independent studies, Rand, Jasper Welch, all say 40 to 60 is the right 
number. We are saying 30 is all we can afford at this point. I urge the 
House to reject this amendment. This is a great moment for us to stand 
up and set our defense priorities for the future.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say, in response to the last comment, 
keep in mind this is a weapon which is a cold war weapon. It was 
designed originally to drop nuclear weapons upon the enemy. There is a 
substantial question about whether or not, when it is converted to 
conventional use and you have to use it on repeated missions, whether 
or not the stealth capability of this weapon can be retained under 
those kinds of battle conditions. I think people need to remember that.
  Second, let me simply summarize, this weapon is not being driven on 
the merits, in my view, it is contractor-driven. We have had a lot of 
comments about the necessity to make the right decision militarily for 
the country. Does anybody on this floor believe that the existing 
Secretary of Defense, an honorable Republican from the Senate, does 
anyone believe that he is not going to try to make the decisions which 
he believes will save the most American lives and meet the greatest 
defense needs of the United States? I do not know of anybody who 
believes that about him.
  I simply want to read what his own summary said on this weapon: 
``First, the B-2 would not provide the full range of warfighting and 
shaping capabilities offered by the forces it would replace''. It then 
goes on to say, ``For example, missions such as air superiority, 
reconnaissance, and forward presence would suffer. Second, the 
additional B-2s did not provide the same weapons delivery capacity per 
day as the forces that would have to be retired to pay for the B-2s.''
  It then concludes by saying, ``* * * existing forces would have to be 
retired immediately to pay for the additional B-2s. Even then, the 
savings from retiring the forces are not enough to offset the large up-
front investment for the B-2s * * * and there would be a loss in 
warfighting capability during the decade or more between when the 
outgoing forces were retired and all the B-2s were delivered.''

                              {time}  1245

  I think that is pretty clear. What we are simply asking Members to do 
is to save the $331 million in this bill for nine planes which the 
Pentagon does not want because it wants other greater defense 
capability. By doing that, we avoid making a down payment on a $27 
billion expenditure that we cannot afford and instead we use that $331 
million, we use two-thirds of it to cut the deficit. We use 12 million 
of it to increase breast cancer research in the Pentagon medical 
operation, and we use $105 million of it to strengthen the

[[Page H5952]]

tanker capability of our Armed Forces which, as everyone knows, needs 
upgrading. That is what we do with the money.
  This amendment strengthens, not weakens, the defense of the country. 
It follows the recommendations of the Pentagon itself. It helps avoid a 
veto, which the Pentagon has indicated they will recommend if this 
amendment does not pass.
  If Members are interested in the best possible defense for the 
country and the best use of taxpayer dollars at the same time, they 
will vote for this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, several questions have been raised that really have not 
been answered. The question about how many B-2's does the Pentagon want 
or did the Pentagon want, I remind my colleagues that in the beginning 
of the B-2 program, the Defense Department wanted 132 B-2's. When 
funding was obviously difficult, they reduced it to 75. And funding was 
even more difficult, they reduced it to 20. And as my colleague from 
California pointed out, when it became politically advantageous, the 20 
went up to 21.
  So the Department of Defense has been all over the board on how many 
B-2's they wanted. The Congress is of the opinion as we voted on the 
armed services authorization bill last month, that there should be nine 
additional B-2's to make it a three squadron force.
  Where would the money go? The amendment would take this money from 
the B-2 line and put it into KC-135 reengining. In that account we are 
already $152 million over the budget. The breast cancer program that 
most all of us support, the administration has never asked for it in 
the defense appropriations bill, but we have for years have funded it, 
and this year this bill is $125 million over what the President's 
budget was. That was a big zero.
  The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] talked about how we outspend 
everybody else in the world, and there is a lot of reason for that. One 
reason is we are an all-volunteer force. We do not have a draft. We do 
not require that people serve in the military of the United States. We 
believe that those who do volunteer and that those who do serve should 
have a decent quality of life, that they should not have to live in 
hovels, that they should not have to live on food stamps. So we include 
in this bill a pay raise. We include in this bill additional money to 
repair barracks. We include in this bill additional money for medical 
care for those who serve in the military and their families.
  In fact about 70 percent of the money appropriated in this bill goes 
for those types of items, not to buy airplanes or ships or guns or 
tanks but to take care of our troops.
  Then, Mr. Chairman, if I were Saddam Hussein or a would-be Saddam 
Hussein, a would-be dictator and I saw that the United States has 
something as effective and powerful as a B-2, I would be very careful 
before I agitated or did something to bring the wrath of the United 
States against me.
  It is difficult to prove a negative. But because of the effectiveness 
of the B-2 and the deterrent value that it brings to our force, how 
many wars, how many battles will we not have to fight?
  It is hard to tell. But if we just did not have to fight one battle 
because we had something like the B-2, how many American lives would we 
save?
  That is what we are talking about, accomplishing the mission and 
saving the lives of the Americans who do it.
  Mr. DeLay. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of this amendment.
  It is no surprise that some Members would oppose a defense program 
that actually works to defend this Nation.
  Some Members simply believe that our defense needs are secondary to 
social spending.
  I disagree.
  I believe that the highest value this Federal Government has is 
defending our people against external threats.
  Some Members believe that those threats to our Nation's survival are 
in permanent decline.
  This is wishful thinking.
  We live in an age when dictators are alive and well. They are busy 
stockpiling nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
  We must prepare to defend ourselves against these very real threats, 
and the B-2 has proven time and again to be a potent and effective 
defensive weapon.
  The notion that the B-2 is needlessly extravagant is simply wrong. 
The Air Force has estimated that a B-2 with two crewmembers could 
conduct an attack normally involving 75 tactical aircraft and 147 
crewmembers.
  The procurement and life-cycle costs of 75 tactical aircraft 
approaches $7.5 billion. The comparable cost for one B-2 is $1.1 
billion.
  Clearly, the B-2 provides us with the best opportunity to protect 
U.S. interests at the lowest cost and with the best possible 
technology.
  I hope that my colleagues will make the right choice tonight.
  A vote against keeping the B-2 line open and operational is 
shortsighted and we simply cannot afford to make such ill-considered, 
shortsighted choices.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 198, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of 
     missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment, 
     including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground 
     handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public 
     and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things; 
     $2,320,741,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2000.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854, title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $414,884,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2000.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For procurement and modification of equipment (including 
     ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground 
     electronic and communication equipment), and supplies, 
     materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided 
     for; the purchase of not to exceed 196 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only; the purchase of 1 vehicle 
     required for physical security of personnel, notwithstanding 
     price limitations applicable to passenger vehicles but not to 
     exceed $232,340 per vehicle; and expansion of public and 
     private plants, Government-owned equipment and installation 
     thereof in such plants, erection of structures, and 
     acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon, prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; $6,588,939,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2000: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph $14,843,000 shall not be 
     obligated or expended until authorized by law.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments) necessary 
     for procurement, production, and modification of equipment, 
     supplies, materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise 
     provided for; the purchase of not to exceed 381 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; expansion of public and 
     private plants, equipment, and installation thereof in such 
     plants, erection of structures, and acquisition of land for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; $2,186,669,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2000: Provided, 
     That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, 
     $349,680,000 shall not be obligated or expended until 
     authorized by law.

                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment

       For procurement of aircraft, missiles, tracked combat 
     vehicles, ammunition, other

[[Page H5953]]

     weapons, and other procurement for the reserve components of 
     the Armed Forces; $850,000,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2000: Provided, That the 
     Chiefs of the Reserve and National Guard components shall, 
     not later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, 
     individually submit to the congressional defense committees 
     the modernization priority assessment for their respective 
     Reserve or National Guard component: Provided further, That 
     of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, $154,895,000 
     shall not be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

                                TITLE IV

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment; $4,686,427,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 1999.

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I claim this time for purposes of entering into a 
colloquy with the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Florida, 
of the Subcommittee on National Defense.
  I would like to bring the DRAGONFLY program to the gentleman's 
attention. The DRAGONFLY program will demonstrate the revolutionary 
flight potential of the canard rotor/wing or CRW high speed vertical 
take-off and landing concept and to assess and validate CRW's 
characteristics and capabilities using unmanned aircraft technology.
  Details on this revolutionary program came to my attention too late 
to be included in the defense appropriations bill now under 
consideration. I understand that the Defense Department plans to pursue 
this technology. However, due to budgetary constraints, funds could not 
be included in this year's budget request.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the gentleman's 
subcommittee consider the funding requirements for the DRAGONFLY 
program during conference on the defense bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that 
I agree that the DRAGONFLY technology appears promising and that the 
committee will consider the gentleman's request during the conference 
and address this issue during that time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
consideration and assistance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment; $7,907,837,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 1999: Provided, That funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph which are available for the V-
     22 may be used to meet unique requirements of the Special 
     Operations Forces.

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment; $14,315,456,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 1999: Provided, 
     That of the funds made available in this paragraph, 
     $4,000,000 shall be only for development of coal-derived jet 
     fuel technologies.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Nadler:
       Page 32, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $420,000,000)''.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes 
and that the time be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Nadler] and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to reduce the appropriation 
for the F-22 fighter plane program in an effort to demonstrate our 
concern over the continued cost growth for this program. This year the 
Air Force is requesting $2 billion for research and development of the 
F-22. Last year the Air Force estimated that the 1998 cost would be 
$1.65 billion, the amount set by my amendment. This amendment is a 
modest reduction in funding, not a cancellation of the costly F-22 
program.
  Many Members of Congress have expressed support for the F-22 program. 
I for one oppose it. But if we are going to spend tens of billions of 
dollars on it, if we are going to spend $27 billion on it, we had 
better make sure the money is properly spent. Senator Coats of Indiana 
has recognized this and championed a similar amendment to this in the 
Senate defense authorization bill. This amendment therefore should 
enjoy at least some bipartisan support in both Houses.
  The F-22 is one of three different types of tactical aircraft being 
developed for future deployment. The estimated total program cost of 
the three tactical air programs in the President's budget, the F-22, 
the F/A-18E/F and the Joint Strike Fighter will be well over $350 
billion.
  The Committee on National Security reports that, quote: ``the long-
term costs associated with DOD's modernization plan are staggering.'' 
At a time of fiscal restraint, developing three planes concurrently, 
three tactical airplanes at the same time seems duplicative and 
wasteful. While we are asking taxpayers to make sacrifices, we must be 
vigilant in our duty to guard against unnecessary spending. These 
dollars could be used to greater benefit.
  We heard some of the better uses to which they could be put in the 
debate on the previous amendment. The F-22 program has been plagued by 
cost overruns and poor project management. Both the Air Force and the 
cost analysis and improvement group in DOD estimated increased cost for 
F-22 production above and beyond what was previously authorized. In 
testimony prior to the National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 1997, the 
Air Force informed the Senate Committee on Armed Services restructuring 
the program had been costly in the past and had resulted in future cost 
escalations.
  This program is a poster child for Defense Department waste. We 
cannot allow these costs to keep creeping upward unchecked.
  This year's request for a funding increase is based in part on the 
cancellation of four preproduction vehicles, foregoing production of 54 
operational aircraft and transferring those funds into the engineering 
and manufacturing development account. So this transfer of funds means 
the number of planes produced will be decreased while the costs will 
continue to increase.
  The Air Force therefore appears to be asking to do less with more 
rather than the opposite of what we usually hear that we ought to 
require government departments to do.
  According to the GAO, the F-15E, which the F-22 is designed to 
replace, will continue to be the premier tactical aircraft in the world 
at least until 2010. Events in the Persian Gulf suggest that current 
tactical aircraft are more than able to counter any likely threat to 
United States forces. The U.S. may need one new fighter program for the 
years after 2010 but not three at the same time. We must reduce this 
program now and make it very clear that defense contractors will not be 
rewarded for high costs.
  It is time we looked at our defense programs with a little more 
scrutiny. We must not simply rubber stamp a bloated defense budget that 
includes billions of dollars in excessive funding simply because we 
fundamentally believe, as we all do, in providing for a strong defense.
  We must have the moral strength to reduce funding for defense 
projects even if they are built in Marietta, GA, and other reasons 
represented by powerful Members of the House. To ignore

[[Page H5954]]

these cost overruns and do nothing would be a gross disservice to the 
American people. To increase funding under such circumstances for an 
expensive program with a poor record of financial restraint would be an 
extreme case of protecting special interests at the expense of hard-
working taxpayers.
  It is a disservice to the American people that year after year we 
refuse to open the size and scope of our defense budget. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in fighting to keep costs under control even if 
those costs appear in a defense bill. The Defense Department should not 
be immune from our normal cost-paring efforts.
  Again, this amendment will simply reduce the R&D for this development 
of this fighter plane to the amount that the Air Force requested a year 
ago that they would request for this year. Again, in the situation in 
which we develop three tactical aircraft at the same time, I think this 
is a very modest request, a very modest amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], who is from 
the Vietnam era, an aviation ace who has flown against these aircraft, 
who has had them fly against him. He has been shot at and he shot them 
down. I think he is an expert on this subject.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I understand part of the gentleman's amendment, that when we have a 
lot of different programs that we have to buy, then there is limited 
dollars. But I would also tell the gentleman that that has been created 
not artificially but by this very body. When we keep cutting defense, 
procurement, about 70 percent, when we have additional BRACC rounds and 
that takes, base closing rounds and that takes additional dollars, when 
we increase the operations tempo higher, higher than during the Vietnam 
conflict, which wears out our equipment, then we cannot put the money 
in research and development. We want to take money and advance the 
procurement for a carrier, which would save $600 million. But if we 
take money out of that carrier from, say, the F-22, we take it from any 
of the other programs, then those costs go up.

                              {time}  1300

  So, eventually, we override the costs and we cannot even buy smart.
  Those that are proponents of reducing defense, and they have that 
right, I disagree with that. But those that do, cost us not only 
national security but we cannot even buy smart because we cannot buy 
and keep a line open. We have to shut down a line, and we have to open 
it. We have to lay off workers and bring them back on. That is very 
costly.
  But I want to talk tactically. These are some of the aircraft that 
the F-22 would have to go out and fight. I have flown most of what we 
have in the United States inventory and most of what the Soviets have. 
I can tell my colleagues their capabilities. I can tell my colleagues 
about their radars, their missiles, their maneuverability, what their 
electronic warfare equipment is, all the different tactical 
applications.
  The F-22 will have a much different mission, say, than the FA-18EF. 
It will be more of a hunter-killer, flying with four to eight aircraft 
protecting B-2's, or actually on what we call a Mig cap, going in prior 
to going into a target and sweeping the area and having blue water and 
fleet air defense, as well as air superiority. As General Fogleman 
says, we need air dominance. We had air superiority in Desert Storm.
  But as we go in, I would ask my colleagues to take a look at the 
reasons that we need these airplanes. The F-22, a lot of it is for the 
same reason that we needed the B-2. The F-22 is one of the new stealthy 
airplanes that we have to go in against a target and that the enemy, 
all those fighters that I showed my colleagues previously, do not know 
that they are there.
  When we close in on a fighter and he does not know we are there, we 
get first shot, he does not. Right now, most of those airplanes on that 
other chart have missiles that will go farther than ours, they go 
faster and they detect us first. With the F-22, they do not detect us. 
It allows our shorter range missile to get inside so that we can fire 
and launch and leave, and now our guys are going to live. That is the 
value of the F-22.
  Now, it is an Air Force airplane. I flew in the Navy. Why would I 
support an Air Force airplane? Because it is part of national security 
and it is part of the defense of this country. In this humble Member's 
opinion it is an aircraft that we need.
  I agree there are not enough dollars to go around, and we could buy 
other programs, but when we take from one to give to the other, then 
the additional costs go up and that is not effective.
  I would say to my friend that in this other chart, the aircraft of 
tomorrow are here today, only the United States does not have them. I 
am alive today because I had better training than the enemy. I am alive 
today because the airplane, the F-4 Phantom in Vietnam was better than 
the Mig-21. The missiles I had, the Sparrow and the Sidewinder, were 
better than the Aphid and the Apex, but that is no longer true.
  This is the research and development. And I will be happy to take my 
colleagues up on the fourth floor where we can talk about the secure 
programs, the black programs that exist in this airplane, that are star 
wars technology that none of the other airplanes have and none of the 
other countries have. This will be an airplane for the future. This is 
an airplane that will mean the difference between life and death for 
our aviators, our men and women.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment, and let me explain why.
  I do not think there are many Members of this House who are more 
greatly respected than the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham]. 
I think he is respected both as a legislator and for his past service 
to this country in his military capacity, and because he is a genuinely 
nice person to know. But I want to say, nonetheless, that I think on 
the merits this amendment has the better of the argument.
  I make that statement for this reason. The Pentagon is going to be 
buying three new tactical aircraft. One of them is the F-22. We are 
supposed to purchase them to replace the F-15. The F-15 is probably the 
finest fighter the United States has ever known. We have over 700 of 
them. The problem with this is that the cost of the F-22 has apparently 
been escalating by about 20 percent, if we take a look at the latest 
information, and that means it is going to cost about $85 billion to 
buy 438 of these babies.
  Now, the Congress hires the GAO, the General Accounting Office, to 
try to give us the best possible advice about how we ought to spend our 
money to get the biggest bang for it. And what they indicate is that 
the F-15, which is the plane that the F-22 is designed to replace, will 
last us at least until the year 2015.
  They indicate, therefore, that they believe the purchase of the F-22, 
which is in this bill, is at least 7 years premature. They think there 
will be at least a 7-year overlap between the use of the F-22 and the 
F-15. So they, therefore, suggest that we slow down the purchase of the 
F-22's so that we do not run up the cost of this program any more than 
is necessary. I think that is the correct thing to do.
  I would also point out that people say, ``Well, we have a huge threat 
that we have to respond to.'' They do not point out that many of the 
countries that possess the planes that we are worried about are 
countries such as France, which the last time I looked was our ally. 
They do not point out that the Rand Corp. says this about the threat to 
the United States: ``The air power forces of the former Soviet Union 
are fragmented and their recovery would take many years. The air fleets 
fielded by other potential adversaries are small and aging.''
  Another Rand study concludes that China will retire about half of its 
fighters and tac aircraft within the next 10 years and that they cannot 
afford to replace them. And if we ask the Defense Department, they will 
tell us that they believe that there will be few purchases of high 
performance fighter aircraft by any potential U.S. adversaries any time 
soon.

[[Page H5955]]

  So I think the gentleman's amendment is a perfectly reasonable one. 
We all know we are going to have this plane some day, and it will, by 
all accounts, be a magnificent airplane. But the fact is we have 
competing needs in this defense budget and, once again, I tell my 
colleagues that this budget contains nothing but false promises if it 
continues to pretend that it can live under the existing 5-year budget 
ceilings that are established for it and still buy all of the new 
weapon systems, including tactical aircraft, which people are hoping to 
buy.
  There just is not going to be enough room in that bag to buy 
everything that we are scheduled to buy. Sooner or later we will have 
to make a decision about which purchases we are going to eliminate, or 
else admit that the 5-year budget ceilings that are talked about in 
this new budget agreement are nothing but a public lie.
  Now, that is the hard choice of it, and the sooner Congress faces up 
to it, the better off we will all be, and that is why I think the 
gentleman is correct in pursuing his amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to rise in opposition 
to the Nadler amendment. As I understand it, we would be cutting $420 
million out of the F-22 procurement.
  Now, what this would do would be to slow down this program.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the gentleman it is $420 
million for the R&D, not procurement.
  Mr. DICKS. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, $420 million 
from the R&D account, not the procurement account. I wish we were in 
procurement, but we are not there yet. We are still in R&D.
  What that will do is to slow down this program rather substantially. 
I think this is a program that has already been stretched out to such 
an extent that one has to be concerned about how much money we are 
going to spend on R&D to get this program into procurement.
  Now, the F-22 is the Air Force's No. 1 priority. Now, anyone who 
listened to the earlier debate, I might have a different set of 
priorities for the Air Force, but they believe that the F-22, the air 
superiority fighter, is absolutely essential for the United States to 
be able, as we did in the Gulf war, to be able to gain air superiority 
once a war starts.
  Of course, this is the airplane that will be involved in coming in, 
attacking other aircraft, attacking surface-to-air missiles, Scud 
launchers, and it will be very, very important in the early going in 
order to gain air superiority and to be able to cap the enemy so that 
they cannot get their aircraft off the ground.
  Once we do that, then we can bring in all the nonstealthy assets that 
we currently possess, like the F-15's, the F-16's, the F-18's, et 
cetera. But it is the enabler. That is why stealth is so important, not 
just for bombers but also for our fighter aircraft. So I believe that 
this is one of the two or three most important programs we are involved 
in.
  I think if we put together the F-22's and the B-2's, we get a 
tremendous synergism with an airplane that can give us air superiority 
and another one that can take advantage of that, to go in and knock out 
a variety of enemy targets and to ultimately allow us to win the war in 
such a way that we save American lives.
  So I would argue strongly against slowing down the F-22, and that is 
what this amendment will do by cutting back R&D funding. I would assume 
it would slow it down for at least 1 year, maybe even more. It would 
have a devastating effect on the program itself.
  Every time Congress gets up and does this, we adjust these programs, 
then the money is cut back, and then the contractors have to go back 
and readjust their entire schedule for developing the plane. So I feel 
very strongly that this program has already been interrupted and we 
should not do it again with this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Nadler amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to simply take this minute to 
say that I agree with one point the gentleman has just made. I think it 
is a mistake for us to stretch out the purchase time for every large 
weapon system that we buy because it does raise the per unit cost.
  But if we agree with that, then we have to face up to the choice that 
we have to cut out one or more of these weapon systems. And that is 
why, it seems to me, that the Congress is making a grave mistake if we 
do not eliminate one of the three tac air systems which the Pentagon is 
supposed to buy under this bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that one area 
we did not look at, that was not looked at in the Quadrennial Defense 
Review, is our nuclear weapons. I would argue we could make a reduction 
ourselves in nuclear weapons and use that money to fund these 
conventional programs which are usable.
  I am a believer that nuclear weapons are there for deterrence and 
only deterrence, and we really do not get a hell of a lot of military 
capability out of them.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not argue with that, but unless we are 
willing to cut the number of systems we buy, then the only choice we 
have is to pursue what the gentleman is pursuing.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] has 4 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] has 7 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Granger].
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. The F-22 will be the 
Air Force's air superiority fighter for the first part of the 21st 
century. The Air Force needs the F-22 as soon as possible.
  Right now the Air Force relies on the F-15 to fly its air superiority 
missions. The F-15 has served our Nation well and has been critical to 
ensuring that no American ground troop has been killed by enemy 
aircraft in over 40 years. But the F-15 is aging. Much of its 
technology was developed back in the 1970's and even the 1960's.

                              {time}  1315

  Though it was far superior than anything in the world when it was 
introduced, the rest of the world has slowly but surely caught up with 
the F-15. We still might have an edge in air superiority, but it is a 
slight edge at best.
  The effect of the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler] would be to continue to rely on this old technology 
for years to come and to just get by. We would keep on flying the aging 
F-15 and hope that the world does not completely catch up with us 
before we unleash the F-22 fighter wings.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to compromise our national security 
interests, as well as the safety and security of the brave men and 
women who serve our country, by just getting by. Proponents of cutting 
the F-22 argue that the world is a safe place and that we face no 
imminent dangers that justify immediate production of the F-22. But one 
of the main reasons that we face no dangers today, and I stress today, 
is that any potential enemies recognize the superiority of American 
technology and fighting strength.
  But the longer we delay incorporating 21st century technology into 
our military, the more we invite potential foes to take the chance that 
they can match us in battle. Investing in technology like the F-22 
Raptor today will, therefore, save us in the long run. War will be much 
less likely to occur if our enemies and potential enemies understand 
that engaging our military in battle is a guaranteed losing 
proposition.
  The costs of war, even the cost of a brief and successful war like 
Desert

[[Page H5956]]

Storm, are much greater than the cost of peace. But more important than 
the ultimate economic savings we will reap from preventing wars with 
investing in the F-22 are the lives of fighting men and women that will 
be saved. By preventing as many conflicts as possible and then by 
thoroughly dominating those few in which we might have to engage, the 
F-22 Raptor will minimize harm to our troops in the field. The mothers 
and fathers of our men and women in uniform will be able to sleep 
better at night knowing that their children are less likely to be in 
harm's way.
  Mr. Chairman, the F-22 is needed, and it is needed without any 
additional delay in production.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, a number of arguments are made against this amendment. 
The argument is made by the gentleman from California, who we all 
respect, is that we have to have air superiority, which we all agree 
with, and that if we do not have the F-22, we will not have air 
superiority, and that American fighters in some future war, therefore, 
will, God forbid, die from lack of the superiority in the technical 
equipment.
  The argument ignores two facts. First, we heard the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] refer to the Rand Commission reports. The Rand 
Commission says the air fleets of potential adversaries are small and 
aging. They are not coming up with new technology fighters. We do not 
see the Russians doing the research and spending the money to produce 
the next generation of fighters. The Chinese Air Force is going to be 
retired and not replaced because they are not doing it either.
  So with whom are we competing for this great new technology? The 
French, our allies? The Defense Department says they see few high 
performance aircraft any time soon anywhere else in the world, other 
than perhaps in France, our allies.
  Second, we are not opposing the F-22. We are saying stretch out the 
time before the procurement, do not reduce the procurement time, 
stretch out the time before the procurement so that there is not a 7-
year overlap with the F-15. We will have the aircraft when we need it. 
But we do not need three separate tactical aircraft programs at the 
same time.
  Finally, let me say, again the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
alluded to this, in this 5-year budget agreement that everyone is 
talking about today, we have Defense Department caps for each year. We 
are not going to be able to maintain them if we keep buying every 
weapon on system, if we need more B-2's, if we need three new tactical 
aircraft systems.
  So what are we doing? We are penny pinching in operations and 
training and personnel, when we ought to be spending more money, 
instead of procuring large numbers of new weapons systems which we 
cannot possibly afford in the future and which we do not need. Some of 
them we need. But we have to make choices. Governing is about making 
choices.
  This amendment is about making a choice, about reducing the cost 
overruns in this program, and hopefully giving us time to reconsider 
whether we need three tactical aircraft programs as a follow-on to the 
F-15, which, last time I looked, was one aircraft.
  So I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the 
time, and I rise in opposition to the Nadler amendment. I understand 
that it is well-intentioned. Even though the program has already been 
slowed down with the agreement of the Congress, it is the No. 1 
priority for the United States Air Force.
  The phrase ``air superiority'' has been used during this debate 
several times. Let me tell you what air superiority is. Air superiority 
is the ability of our pilots flying our airplanes to go into the war 
zone and to deny access to the air by the enemy planes, either to shoot 
them down or, as we did in Desert Storm, to scare them so that they run 
when they see our airplanes.
  The other part of air superiority is the soldier on the ground. The 
soldier on the ground, when he looks up, he wants to see an American 
airplane in control of the sky, he wants to know that the airplane up 
there is not going to drop a bomb or some kind of munition on him. That 
is why air superiority is so important.
  The F-22 will guarantee us air superiority and control of the skies 
in the world as we know it today. But as the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cunningham] pointed out earlier, many other countries are building 
new and outstanding technology aircraft. We have got to be able to keep 
up with that.
  In the year 2015, a date that has been mentioned when the F-22 might 
be fully capable, fully operational, the F-15, which is a tremendous 
airplane, will be 45 years old. My 10-year-old son has told me 
repeatedly that he wants to be a fighter pilot. Well, if that should 
happen and he cannot fly the F-22 until the year 2015, he can be flying 
a 45-year-old airplane. I do not want that to happen, and I do not want 
anybody else that is going to be flying a combat aircraft to have to 
fly a 40-year-old airplane.
  It is just not right because it takes away his advantage, it takes 
away his edge over the enemy. All of us pray to God that we never have 
to send another pilot to war or another soldier to a ground war. But 
unfortunately that may not be the case. But we have got to go with the 
best equipment, the best technology, the best training that we possibly 
can so that our soldiers in the air, on the ground, our sailors on the 
sea, under the sea have the best training, the best equipment, the best 
technology possible so that they can, No. 1, accomplish their mission, 
Mr. Chairman, but No. 2, give themselves some protection while they are 
at it.
  That is what this F-22 will do. It will help accomplish the mission 
and give our pilots protection and the ability to come home in their 
airplane, rather than come home as a POW or come home in a body bag. 
That is why this investment is a good investment and we ought to deny 
this amendment and allow the F-22 program to continue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary 
     for basic and applied scientific research, development, test 
     and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be 
     designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense, 
     pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and 
     operation of facilities and equipment; $9,494,337,000, to 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 1999: 
     Provided, That not less than $444,898,000 of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph shall be made available only 
     for the Sea-Based Wide Area Defense (Navy Upper-Tier) 
     program: Provided further, That funds appropriated for the 
     Dual-Use Applications Program under section 5803 of the 
     Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208), shall remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 1998.

               Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, of independent 
     activities of the Director, Test and Evaluation in the 
     direction and supervision of developmental test and 
     evaluation, including performance and joint developmental 
     testing and evaluation; and administrative expenses in 
     connection therewith; $268,183,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 1999.

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and 
     Evaluation in the direction and supervision of operational 
     test and evaluation, including initial operational test and 
     evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of, 
     production decisions; joint operational testing and 
     evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection 
     therewith; $32,684,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 1999: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph, $9,300,000 shall not be 
     obligated or expended until authorized by law.

                                TITLE V

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For the Defense Working Capital Funds; $971,952,000.

                     National Defense Sealift Fund

       For National Defense Sealift Fund programs, projects, and 
     activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve

[[Page H5957]]

     Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship 
     Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744); $1,199,926,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That none of the 
     funds provided in this paragraph shall be used to award a new 
     contract that provides for the acquisition of any of the 
     following major components unless such components are 
     manufactured in the United States: auxiliary equipment, 
     including pumps, for all ship-board services; propulsion 
     system components (that is; engines, reduction gears, and 
     propellers); shipboard cranes; and spreaders for shipboard 
     cranes: Provided further, That the exercise of an option in a 
     contract awarded through the obligation of previously 
     appropriated funds shall not be considered to be the award of 
     a new contract: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     military department responsible for such procurement may 
     waive these restrictions on a case-by-case basis by 
     certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate, that adequate 
     domestic supplies are not available to meet Department of 
     Defense requirements on a timely basis and that such an 
     acquisition must be made in order to acquire capability for 
     national security purposes: Provided further, That of the 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph, $18,300,000 shall not 
     be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

                                TITLE VI

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, for medical and 
     health care programs of the Department of Defense, as 
     authorized by law; $10,309,750,000, of which $10,035,682,000 
     shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which not to 
     exceed three percent shall remain available until September 
     30, 1999, and of which $274,068,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2000, shall be for 
     Procurement: Provided, That of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph, $55,300,000 shall not be obligated or expended 
     until authorized by law.

           Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical 
     agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 
     1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other 
     chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical 
     weapon stockpile, $595,700,000, of which $472,200,000 shall 
     be for Operation and maintenance, $67,200,000 shall be for 
     Procurement to remain available until September 30, 2000, and 
     $56,300,000 shall be for Research, development, test and 
     evaluation to remain available until September 30, 1999.

         Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the 
     Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense for military personnel 
     of the reserve components serving under the provisions of 
     title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for Operation and 
     maintenance; for Procurement; and for Research, development, 
     test and evaluation; $713,082,000: Provided, That funds 
     appropriated by this paragraph shall be available for 
     obligation for the same time period and for the same purpose 
     as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That the transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in 
     addition to any transfer authority contained elsewhere in 
     this Act: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in 
     this paragraph, $51,411,000 shall not be obligated or 
     expended until authorized by law.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended; $142,980,000, of which 
     $141,180,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which 
     not to exceed $600,000 is available for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made 
     on his certificate of necessity for confidential military 
     purposes; and of which $1,800,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2000, shall be for Procurement: Provided, That 
     of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, $4,600,000 shall 
     not be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

                               TITLE VII

                            RELATED AGENCIES

   Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund

       For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement 
     and Disability System Fund, to maintain proper funding level 
     for continuing the operation of the Central Intelligence 
     Agency Retirement and Disability System; $196,900,000.

               Intelligence Community Management Account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community 
     Management Account; $125,580,000, of which $39,011,000 for 
     the Advanced Research and Development Committee and the 
     Environmental Intelligence and Applications Program shall 
     remain available until September 30, 1999: Provided, That of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading, $27,000,000 shall 
     be transferred to the Department of Justice for the National 
     Drug Intelligence Center to support the Department of 
     Defense's counter-drug intelligence responsibilities, and of 
     the said amount, $1,500,000 for Procurement shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2000, and $3,000,000 for 
     Research, development, test and evaluation shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1999.

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

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

                 National Security Education Trust Fund

       For the purposes of title VIII of Public Law 102-183, 
     $2,000,000, to be derived from the National Security 
     Education Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.

                               TITLE VIII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

                          (transfer of funds)

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

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8006. During the current fiscal year, cash balances in 
     working capital funds of the Department of Defense 
     established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United 
     States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are 
     necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from 
     such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such 
     funds: Provided further, That transfers may be made between 
     working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency 
     Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation and the ``Operation and 
     Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such amounts as may 
     be determined by the Secretary of Defense, with the approval 
     of the Office of Management and Budget, except that such 
     transfers may not be made unless the Secretary of Defense has 
     notified the Congress of the proposed transfer. Except in 
     amounts equal to the amounts appropriated to working capital 
     funds in this Act, no obligations may be made against a 
     working capital fund to procure or increase

[[Page H5958]]

     the value of war reserve material inventory, unless the 
     Secretary of Defense has notified the Congress prior to any 
     such obligation.
       Sec. 8007. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used 
     to initiate a special access program without prior 
     notification 30 calendar days in session in advance to the 
     congressional defense committees.
       Sec. 8008. (a) None of the funds provided in this Act shall 
     be available to initiate (1) a multiyear contract that 
     employs economic order quantity procurement in excess of 
     $20,000,000 in any one year of the contract or that includes 
     an unfunded contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000, or 
     (2) a contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear 
     contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in 
     excess of $20,000,000 in any one year, unless the 
     congressional defense committees have been notified at least 
     thirty days in advance of the proposed contract award: 
     Provided, That no part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available to initiate a multiyear contract for 
     which the economic order quantity advance procurement is not 
     funded at least to the limits of the Government's liability: 
     Provided further, That no part of any appropriation contained 
     in this Act shall be available to initiate multiyear 
     procurement contracts for any systems or component thereof if 
     the value of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 
     unless specifically provided in this Act: Provided further, 
     That no multiyear procurement contract can be terminated 
     without 10-day prior notification to the congressional 
     defense committees: Provided further, That the execution of 
     multiyear authority shall require the use of a present value 
     analysis to determine lowest cost compared to an annual 
     procurement.
       Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used for 
     multiyear procurement contracts as follows:
       Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles.
       (b) None of the funds provided in this Act and hereafter 
     may be used to submit to Congress (or to any committee of 
     Congress) a request for authority to enter into a contract 
     covered by those provisions of subsection (a) that precede 
     the first proviso of that subsection unless--
       (1) such request is made as part of the submission of the 
     President's Budget for the United States Government for any 
     fiscal year and is set forth in the Appendix to that budget 
     as part of proposed legislative language for appropriations 
     bills for the next fiscal year; or
       (2) such request is formally submitted by the President as 
     a budget amendment; or
       (3) the Secretary of Defense makes such request in writing 
     to the congressional defense committees.
       Sec. 8009. Within the funds appropriated for the operation 
     and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby 
     appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United 
     States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs 
     under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds 
     may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance 
     costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to 
     authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and these obligations shall be reported 
     to Congress on September 30 of each year: Provided, That 
     funds available for operation and maintenance shall be 
     available for providing humanitarian and similar assistance 
     by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust Territories of the 
     Pacific Islands and freely associated states of Micronesia, 
     pursuant to the Compact of Free Association as authorized by 
     Public Law 99-239: Provided further, That upon a 
     determination by the Secretary of the Army that such action 
     is beneficial for graduate medical education programs 
     conducted at Army medical facilities located in Hawaii, the 
     Secretary of the Army may authorize the provision of medical 
     services at such facilities and transportation to such 
     facilities, on a nonreimbursable basis, for civilian patients 
     from American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 
     Micronesia, Palau, and Guam.
       Sec. 8010. (a) During fiscal year 1998, the civilian 
     personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on 
     the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such 
     personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any 
     constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the 
     number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day 
     of such fiscal year.
       (b) The fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 1999 Department of 
     Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were 
     effective with regard to fiscal year 1999.
       (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to 
     military (civilian) technicians.
       Sec. 8011. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds made available by this Act shall be used by the 
     Department of Defense to exceed, outside the fifty United 
     States, its territories, and the District of Columbia, 
     125,000 civilian workyears: Provided, That workyears shall be 
     applied as defined in the Federal Personnel Manual: Provided 
     further, That workyears expended in dependent student hiring 
     programs for disadvantaged youths shall not be included in 
     this workyear limitation.
       Sec. 8012. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to 
     influence congressional action on any legislation or 
     appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
       Sec. 8013. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     shall be used to make contributions to the Department of 
     Defense Education Benefits Fund pursuant to section 2006(g) 
     of title 10, United States Code, representing the normal cost 
     for future benefits under section 3015(c) of title 38, United 
     States Code, for any member of the armed services who, on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act--
       (1) enlists in the armed services for a period of active 
     duty of less than three years; or
       (2) receives an enlistment bonus under section 308a or 308f 
     of title 37, United States Code,

     nor shall any amounts representing the normal cost of such 
     future benefits be transferred from the Fund by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pursuant 
     to section 2006(d) of title 10, United States Code; nor shall 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pay such benefits to any 
     such member: Provided, That in the case of a member covered 
     by clause (1), these limitations shall not apply to members 
     in combat arms skills or to members who enlist in the armed 
     services on or after July 1, 1989, under a program continued 
     or established by the Secretary of Defense in fiscal year 
     1991 to test the cost-effective use of special recruiting 
     incentives involving not more than nineteen noncombat arms 
     skills approved in advance by the Secretary of Defense: 
     Provided further, That this subsection applies only to active 
     components of the Army.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
     available for the basic pay and allowances of any member of 
     the Army participating as a full-time student and receiving 
     benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from the 
     Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when time spent 
     as a full-time student is credited toward completion of a 
     service commitment: Provided, That this subsection shall not 
     apply to those members who have reenlisted with this option 
     prior to October 1, 1987: Provided further, That this 
     subsection applies only to active components of the Army.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8014. Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for 
     the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be 
     transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act 
     solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege 
     Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to 
     section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2301 note), 
     as amended, under the authority of this provision or any 
     other transfer authority contained in this Act.
       Sec. 8015. None of the funds in this Act may be available 
     for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its 
     departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and 
     mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the 
     anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United 
     States from components which are substantially manufactured 
     in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this 
     section manufactured will include cutting, heat treating, 
     quality control, testing of chain and welding (including the 
     forging and shot blasting process): Provided further, That 
     for the purpose of this section substantially all of the 
     components of anchor and mooring chain shall be considered to 
     be produced or manufactured in the United States if the 
     aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured in 
     the United States exceeds the aggregate cost of the 
     components produced or manufactured outside the United 
     States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service 
     responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on 
     a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be 
     made in order to acquire capability for national security 
     purposes.
       Sec. 8016. None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
     Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) shall be available for the 
     reimbursement of any health care provider for inpatient 
     mental health service for care received when a patient is 
     referred to a provider of inpatient mental health care or 
     residential treatment care by a medical or health care 
     professional having an economic interest in the facility to 
     which the patient is referred: Provided, That this limitation 
     does not apply in the case of inpatient mental health 
     services provided under the program for the handicapped under 
     subsection (d) of section 1079 of title 10, United States 
     Code, provided as partial hospital care, or provided pursuant 
     to a waiver authorized by the Secretary of Defense because of 
     medical or psychological circumstances of the patient that 
     are confirmed by a health professional who is not a Federal 
     employee after a review, pursuant to rules prescribed by the 
     Secretary, which takes into account the appropriate level of 
     care for the patient, the intensity of services required by 
     the patient, and the availability of that care.
       Sec. 8017. Funds available in this Act may be used to 
     provide transportation for the next-of-kin of individuals who 
     have been prisoners of war or missing in action from the 
     Vietnam era to an annual meeting in the

[[Page H5959]]

     United States, under such regulations as the Secretary of 
     Defense may prescribe.
       Sec. 8018. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during the current fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense may, 
     by Executive Agreement, establish with host nation 
     governments in NATO member states a separate account into 
     which such residual value amounts negotiated in the return of 
     United States military installations in NATO member states 
     may be deposited, in the currency of the host nation, in lieu 
     of direct monetary transfers to the United States Treasury: 
     Provided, That such credits may be utilized only for the 
     construction of facilities to support United States military 
     forces in that host nation, or such real property maintenance 
     and base operating costs that are currently executed through 
     monetary transfers to such host nations: Provided further, 
     That the Department of Defense's budget submission for fiscal 
     year 1999 shall identify such sums anticipated in residual 
     value settlements, and identify such construction, real 
     property maintenance or base operating costs that shall be 
     funded by the host nation through such credits: Provided 
     further, That all military construction projects to be 
     executed from such accounts must be previously approved in a 
     prior Act of Congress: Provided further, That each such 
     Executive Agreement with a NATO member host nation shall be 
     reported to the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate thirty days prior to the conclusion and endorsement of 
     any such agreement established under this provision.
       Sec. 8019. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 
     Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, 
     .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols.
       Sec. 8020. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to 
     pay more than 50 percent of an amount paid to any person 
     under section 308 of title 37, United States Code, in a lump 
     sum.
       Sec. 8021. No more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated 
     or made available in this Act shall be used for any single 
     relocation of an organization, unit, activity or function of 
     the Department of Defense into or within the National Capital 
     Region: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the congressional defense committees that such a 
     relocation is required in the best interest of the 
     Government.
       Sec. 8022. During the current fiscal year, funds 
     appropriated or otherwise available for any Federal agency, 
     the Congress, the judicial branch, or the District of 
     Columbia may be used for the pay, allowances, and benefits of 
     an employee as defined by section 2105 of title 5 or an 
     individual employed by the government of the District of 
     Columbia, permanent or temporary indefinite, who--
       (1) is a member of a Reserve component of the Armed Forces, 
     as described in section 10101 of title 10, or the National 
     Guard, as described in section 101 of title 32;
       (2) performs, for the purpose of providing military aid to 
     enforce the law or providing assistance to civil authorities 
     in the protection or saving of life or property or prevention 
     of injury--
       (A) Federal service under sections 331, 332, 333, or 12406 
     of title 10, or other provision of law, as applicable, or
       (B) full-time military service for his or her State, the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a 
     territory of the United States; and
       (3) requests and is granted--
       (A) leave under the authority of this section; or
       (B) annual leave, which may be granted without regard to 
     the provisions of sections 5519 and 6323(b) of title 5, if 
     such employee is otherwise entitled to such annual leave:

     Provided, That any employee who requests leave under 
     subsection (3)(A) for service described in subsection (2) of 
     this section is entitled to such leave, subject to the 
     provisions of this section and of the last sentence of 
     section 6323(b) of title 5, and such leave shall be 
     considered leave under section 6323(b) of title 5.
       Sec. 8023. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to perform any cost study pursuant to the 
     provisions of OMB Circular A-76 if the study being performed 
     exceeds a period of twenty-four months after initiation of 
     such study with respect to a single function activity or 
     forty-eight months after initiation of such study for a 
     multi-function activity.
       Sec. 8024. Funds appropriated by this Act for the American 
     Forces Information Service shall not be used for any national 
     or international political or psychological activities.
       Sec. 8025. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, the Secretary of Defense may adjust wage rates 
     for civilian employees hired for certain health care 
     occupations as authorized for the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs by section 7455 of title 38, United States Code.
       Sec. 8026. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to reduce or disestablish the 
     operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the 
     Air Force Reserve, if such action would reduce the WC-130 
     Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in 
     this Act.
       Sec. 8027. (a) Of the funds for the procurement of supplies 
     or services appropriated by this Act, qualified nonprofit 
     agencies for the blind or other severely handicapped shall be 
     afforded the maximum practicable opportunity to participate 
     as subcontractors and suppliers in the performance of 
     contracts let by the Department of Defense.
       (b) During the current fiscal year, a business concern 
     which has negotiated with a military service or defense 
     agency a subcontracting plan for the participation by small 
     business concerns pursuant to section 8(d) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) shall be given credit toward 
     meeting that subcontracting goal for any purchases made from 
     qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely 
     handicapped.
       (c) For the purpose of this section, the phrase ``qualified 
     nonprofit agency for the blind or other severely 
     handicapped'' means a nonprofit agency for the blind or other 
     severely handicapped that has been approved by the Committee 
     for the Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely 
     Handicapped under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
     48).
       Sec. 8028. During the current fiscal year, net receipts 
     pursuant to collections from third party payers pursuant to 
     section 1095 of title 10, United States Code, shall be made 
     available to the local facility of the uniformed services 
     responsible for the collections and shall be over and above 
     the facility's direct budget amount.
       Sec. 8029. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense is authorized to incur obligations of not to 
     exceed $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section 
     2350j(c) of title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of 
     receipt of contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait, 
     under that section: Provided, That, upon receipt, such 
     contributions from the Government of Kuwait shall be credited 
     to the appropriations or fund which incurred such 
     obligations.
       Sec. 8030. Of the funds made available in this Act, not 
     less than $27,200,000 shall be available for the Civil Air 
     Patrol, of which $22,702,000 shall be available for Operation 
     and maintenance.
       Sec. 8031. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     are available to establish a new Department of Defense 
     (department) federally funded research and development center 
     (FFRDC), either as a new entity, or as a separate entity 
     administrated by an organization managing another FFRDC, or 
     as a nonprofit membership corporation consisting of a 
     consortium of other FFRDCs and other non-profit entities.
       (b) Limitation on Compensation.--No member of a Board of 
     Directors, Trustees, Overseers, Advisory Group, Special 
     Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or any similar entity of a 
     defense FFRDC, and no paid consultant to any defense FFRDC, 
     may be compensated for his or her services as a member of 
     such entity, or as a paid consultant, except under the same 
     conditions, and to the same extent, as members of the Defense 
     Science Board: Provided, That a member of any such entity 
     referred to previously in this subsection shall be allowed 
     travel expenses and per diem as authorized under the Federal 
     Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in the performance of 
     membership duties.
        (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of 
     the funds available to the department from any source during 
     fiscal year 1998 may be used by a defense FFRDC, through a 
     fee or other payment mechanism, for charitable contributions, 
     for construction of new buildings, for payment of cost 
     sharing for projects funded by government grants, or for 
     absorption of contract overruns.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall reduce the total amounts 
     appropriated in titles II, III, and IV of this Act by 
     $55,000,000: Provided, That the total amounts appropriated in 
     titles II, III, and IV of this Act are hereby reduced by 
     $55,000,000 to reflect savings from the use of defense FFRDCs 
     by the Department.
       (e) Within 60 days after enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report presenting the specific amounts 
     of staff years of technical effort to be allocated by the 
     department for each defense FFRDC during fiscal year 1998: 
     Provided, That, after the submission of the report required 
     by this subsection, the department may not reallocate more 
     than five percent of an FFRDC's staff years among other 
     defense FFRDCs until 30 days after a detailed justification 
     for any such reallocation is submitted to the congressional 
     defense committees.
       (f) The Secretary of Defense shall, with the submission of 
     the department's fiscal year 1999 budget request, submit a 
     report presenting the specific amounts of staff years of 
     technical effort to be allocated for each defense FFRDC 
     during that fiscal year.
       (g) The total amounts appropriated to or for the use of the 
     department in title II of this Act are hereby further reduced 
     by $86,300,000 to reflect savings from the decreased use of 
     non-FFRDC consulting services by the department.
       (h) No part of the reductions contained in subsections (d) 
     and (g) of this section may be applied against any budget 
     activity, activity group, subactivity group, line item, 
     program element, program, project, subproject or activity 
     which does not fund defense FFRDC activities or non-FFRDC 
     consulting services within each appropriation account.
       (i) Not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report listing the specific funding 
     reductions allocated to each category listed in subsection 
     (h) above pursuant to this section.

[[Page H5960]]

       Sec. 8032. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or 
     property under the control of the Department of Defense which 
     were not melted and rolled in the United States or Canada: 
     Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall apply to 
     any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American Society of 
     Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and Steel 
     Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     military department responsible for the procurement may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions 
     shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 8033. For the purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``congressional defense committees'' means the National 
     Security Committee of the House of Representatives, the Armed 
     Services Committee of the Senate, the subcommittee on Defense 
     of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the 
     subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
       Sec. 8034. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense may acquire the modification, depot maintenance 
     and repair of aircraft, vehicles and vessels as well as the 
     production of components and other Defense-related articles, 
     through competition between Department of Defense depot 
     maintenance activities and private firms: Provided, That the 
     Senior Acquisition Executive of the military department or 
     defense agency concerned, with power of delegation, shall 
     certify that successful bids include comparable estimates of 
     all direct and indirect costs for both public and private 
     bids: Provided further, That Office of Management and Budget 
     Circular A-76 shall not apply to competitions conducted under 
     this section.
       Sec. 8035. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after 
     consultation with the United States Trade Representative, 
     determines that a foreign country which is party to an 
     agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms 
     of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of 
     products produced in the United States that are covered by 
     the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the 
     Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with 
     respect to such types of products produced in that foreign 
     country.
       (2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any 
     reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding, 
     between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to 
     which the Secretary of Defense has prospectively waived the 
     Buy American Act for certain products in that country.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from 
     foreign entities in fiscal year 1998. Such report shall 
     separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the 
     Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any agreement 
     described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement Act of 
     1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international agreement 
     to which the United States is a party.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American 
     Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
     for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other 
     purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       Sec. 8036. Appropriations contained in this Act that remain 
     available at the end of the current fiscal year as a result 
     of energy cost savings realized by the Department of Defense 
     shall remain available for obligation for the next fiscal 
     year to the extent, and for the purposes, provided in section 
     2865 of title 10, United States Code.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8037. Amounts deposited during the current fiscal year 
     to the special account established under 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2) 
     and to the special account established under 10 U.S.C. 
     2667(d)(1) are appropriated and shall be available until 
     transferred by the Secretary of Defense to current applicable 
     appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense under 
     the terms and conditions specified by 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2) (A) 
     and (B) and 10 U.S.C. 2667(d)(1)(B), to be merged with and to 
     be available for the same time period and the same purposes 
     as the appropriation to which transferred.
       Sec. 8038. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense may be used to 
     reimburse a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces 
     who is not otherwise entitled to travel and transportation 
     allowances and who occupies transient government housing 
     while performing active duty for training or inactive duty 
     training: Provided, That such members may be provided lodging 
     in kind if transient government quarters are unavailable as 
     if the member was entitled to such allowances under 
     subsection (a) of section 404 of title 37, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That if lodging in kind is provided, 
     any authorized service charge or cost of such lodging may be 
     paid directly from funds appropriated for operation and 
     maintenance of the reserve component of the member concerned.
       Sec. 8039. The President shall include with each budget for 
     a fiscal year submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, materials that shall identify 
     clearly and separately the amounts requested in the budget 
     for appropriation for that fiscal year for salaries and 
     expenses related to administrative activities of the 
     Department of Defense, the military departments, and the 
     Defense Agencies.
       Sec. 8040. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available for ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
     Activities, Defense'' may be obligated for the Young Marines 
     program.
       Sec. 8041. During the current fiscal year, amounts 
     contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military 
     Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section 
     2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available 
     until expended for the payments specified by section 
     2921(c)(2) of that Act.
       Sec. 8042. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act, not more than $119,200,000 shall be 
     available for payment of the operating costs of NATO 
     Headquarters: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may 
     waive this section for Department of Defense support provided 
     to NATO forces in and around the former Yugoslavia.
       Sec. 8043. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     which are available to the Department of Defense for 
     operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items 
     having an investment item unit cost of not more than 
     $100,000.
       Sec. 8044. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     appropriations or funds available to the Defense Working 
     Capital Funds shall be used for the purchase of an investment 
     item for the purpose of acquiring a new inventory item for 
     sale or anticipated sale during the current fiscal year or a 
     subsequent fiscal year to customers of the Defense Working 
     Capital Funds if such an item would not have been chargeable 
     to the Defense Business Operations Fund during fiscal year 
     1994 and if the purchase of such an investment item would be 
     chargeable during the current fiscal year to appropriations 
     made to the Department of Defense for procurement.
       (b) The fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 1999 Department of 
     Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified 
     as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation 
     contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed 
     fiscal year 1999 procurement appropriation and not in the 
     Supply Management Activity Group or any other area or 
     category of the Defense Working Capital Funds.
       Sec. 8045. None of the funds provided in this Act and 
     hereafter shall be available for use by a Military Department 
     to modify an aircraft, weapon, ship or other item of 
     equipment, that the Military Department concerned plans to 
     retire or otherwise dispose of within five years after 
     completion of the modification: Provided, That this 
     prohibition shall not apply to safety modifications: Provided 
     further, That this prohibition may be waived by the Secretary 
     of a Military Department if the Secretary determines it is in 
     the best national security interest of the United States to 
     provide such waiver and so notifies the congressional defense 
     committees in writing.
       Sec. 8046. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain 
     available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year, 
     except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for 
     Contingencies, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 1999.
       Sec. 8047. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence 
     Agency may be used for the design, development, and 
     deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program 
     intelligence communications and intelligence information 
     systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands, 
     and the component commands.
       Sec. 8048. Amounts collected for the use of the facilities 
     of the National Science Center for Communications and 
     Electronics during the current fiscal year pursuant to 
     section 1459(g) of the Department of Defense Authorization 
     Act, 1986, and deposited to the special account established 
     under subsection 1459(g)(2) of that Act are appropriated and 
     shall be available until expended for the operation and 
     maintenance of the Center as provided for in subsection 
     1459(g)(2).
       Sec. 8049. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may 
     be used to fill the commander's position at any military 
     medical facility with a health care professional unless the 
     prospective candidate can demonstrate professional 
     administrative skills.
       Sec. 8050. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense 
     unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with Buy 
     American Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term ``Buy 
     American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
     Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for 
     other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.).
       (b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person 
     has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing 
     a ``Made in

[[Page H5961]]

     America'' inscription to any product sold in or shipped to 
     the United States that is not made in America, the Secretary 
     shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f of title 
     10, United States Code, whether the person should be debarred 
     from contracting with the Department of Defense.
       (c) In the case of any equipment or products purchased with 
     appropriations provided under this Act, it is the sense of 
     the Congress that any entity of the Department of Defense, in 
     expending the appropriation, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products, provided that American-made equipment 
     and products are cost-competitive, quality-competitive, and 
     available in a timely fashion.
       Sec. 8051. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available for a contract for studies, analysis, or 
     consulting services entered into without competition on the 
     basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the 
     activity responsible for the procurement determines--
       (1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one 
     source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work, 
     or
       (2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an 
     unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or 
     technological promise, represents the product of original 
     thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source, or
       (3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of 
     unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a 
     specific concern, or to insure that a new product or idea of 
     a specific concern is given financial support:

     Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to contracts 
     in an amount of less than $25,000, contracts related to 
     improvements of equipment that is in development or 
     production, or contracts as to which a civilian official of 
     the Department of Defense, who has been confirmed by the 
     Senate, determines that the award of such contract is in the 
     interest of the national defense.
       Sec. 8052. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and 
     (c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used--
       (1) to establish a field operating agency, or to increase 
     the number of personnel assigned to a field operating agency 
     of a headquarters activity; or
       (2) to pay the basic pay of a member of the Armed Forces or 
     civilian employee of the Department who is transferred or 
     reassigned from a headquarters activity if the member or 
     employee's place of duty remains at the location of that 
     headquarters.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense or Secretary of a military 
     department may waive the limitations in subsection (a), on a 
     case-by-case basis, if the Secretary determines, and 
     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate that the granting of the waiver 
     will reduce the personnel requirements or the financial 
     requirements of the department.
       (c) This section does not apply to field operating agencies 
     funded within the National Foreign Intelligence Program.
       Sec. 8053. Notwithstanding section 303 of Public Law 96-487 
     or any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Navy is 
     authorized to lease real and personal property at Naval Air 
     Facility, Adak, Alaska, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2667(f), for 
     commercial, industrial or other purposes.
       Sec. 8054. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     resident classes entering the war colleges after September 
     30, 1998, the Department of Defense shall require that not 
     less than 20 percent of the total of United States military 
     students at each war college shall be from military 
     departments other than the hosting military department: 
     Provided, That each military department will recognize the 
     attendance at a sister military department war college as the 
     equivalent of attendance at its own war college for promotion 
     and advancement of personnel.

                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 8055. Of the funds provided in Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby rescinded 
     from the following accounts in the specified amounts:
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Army, 1997/1999'', $10,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Army, 1997/1999'', $5,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Army, 1997/1999'', $46,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy, 1997/1999'', $24,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Navy, 1997/1999'', $2,200,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 1997/1999'', 
     $27,000,000;
       ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 1996/2000'', 
     $35,600,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Navy, 1996/1998'', $3,300,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 1997/
     1998'', $7,000,000.
       Sec. 8056. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     obligated for payment on new contracts on which allowable 
     costs charged to the government include payments for 
     individual compensation at a rate in excess of $250,000 per 
     year.
       Sec. 8057. None of the funds available in this Act may be 
     used to reduce the authorized positions for military 
     (civilian) technicians of the Army National Guard, the Air 
     National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the 
     purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian 
     personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military 
     (civilian) technicians, unless such reductions are a direct 
     result of a reduction in military force structure.
       Sec. 8058. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea 
     unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
       Sec. 8059. During the current fiscal year, funds 
     appropriated in this Act are available to compensate members 
     of the National Guard for duty performed pursuant to a plan 
     submitted by a Governor of a State and approved by the 
     Secretary of Defense under section 112 of title 32, United 
     States Code: Provided, That during the performance of such 
     duty, the members of the National Guard shall be under State 
     command and control: Provided further, That such duty shall 
     be treated as full-time National Guard duty for purposes of 
     sections 12602 (a)(2) and (b)(2) of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 8060. Funds appropriated in this Act for operation and 
     maintenance of the Military Departments, Unified and 
     Specified Commands and Defense Agencies shall be available 
     for reimbursement of pay, allowances and other expenses which 
     would otherwise be incurred against appropriations for the 
     National Guard and Reserve when members of the National Guard 
     and Reserve provide intelligence support to Unified Commands, 
     Defense Agencies and Joint Intelligence Activities, including 
     the activities and programs included within the General 
     Defense Intelligence Program and the Consolidated Cryptologic 
     Program: Provided, That nothing in this section authorizes 
     deviation from established Reserve and National Guard 
     personnel and training procedures.
       Sec. 8061. During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds appropriated in this Act may be used to reduce the 
     civilian medical and medical support personnel assigned to 
     military treatment facilities below the September 30, 1997 
     level: Provided, That the Service Surgeons General may waive 
     this section by certifying to the congressional defense 
     committees that the beneficiary population is declining in 
     some catchment areas and civilian strength reductions may be 
     consistent with responsible resource stewardship and 
     capitation-based budgeting.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8062. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may 
     be transferred to or obligated from the Pentagon Reservation 
     Maintenance Revolving Fund, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     certifies that the total cost for the planning, design, 
     construction and installation of equipment for the renovation 
     of the Pentagon Reservation will not exceed $1,218,000,000.
       Sec. 8063. (a) None of the funds available to the 
     Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug 
     interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to 
     any other department or agency of the United States except as 
     specifically provided in an appropriations law.
       (b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence 
     Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
     drug activities may be transferred to any other department or 
     agency of the United States except as specifically provided 
     in an appropriations law.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8064. Appropriations available in this Act under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' for 
     increasing energy and water efficiency in Federal buildings 
     may, during their period of availability, be transferred to 
     other appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense 
     for projects related to increasing energy and water 
     efficiency, to be merged with and to be available for the 
     same general purposes, and for the same time period, as the 
     appropriation or fund to which transferred.
       Sec. 8065. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used for the procurement of ball and roller bearings other 
     than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic 
     origin: Provided, That the Secretary of the military 
     department responsible for such procurement may waive this 
     restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes.
       Sec. 8066. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made 
     available to provide transportation of medical supplies and 
     equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to American Samoa: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made 
     available to provide transportation of medical supplies and 
     equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to the Indian Health 
     Service when it is in conjunction with a civil-military 
     project.
       Sec. 8067. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the 
     United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to 
     the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes that is not available from United States 
     manufacturers.
       Sec. 8068. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Naval shipyards of the

[[Page H5962]]

     United States shall be eligible to participate in any 
     manufacturing extension program financed by funds 
     appropriated in this or any other Act.
       Sec. 8069. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each 
     contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the 
     current fiscal year for construction or service performed in 
     whole or in part in a State which is not contiguous with 
     another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the 
     national average rate of unemployment as determined by the 
     Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the 
     contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that 
     portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous 
     with another State, individuals who are residents of such 
     State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or 
     would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive the 
     requirements of this section, on a case-by-case basis, in the 
     interest of national security.
       Sec. 8070. During the current fiscal year, the Army shall 
     use the former George Air Force Base as the airhead for the 
     National Training Center at Fort Irwin: Provided, That none 
     of the funds in this Act shall be obligated or expended to 
     transport Army personnel into Edwards Air Force Base for 
     training rotations at the National Training Center.
       Sec. 8071. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit, on a 
     quarterly basis, a report to the congressional defense 
     committees, the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate setting forth all costs (including 
     incremental costs) incurred by the Department of Defense 
     during the preceding quarter in implementing or supporting 
     resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, including 
     any such resolution calling for international sanctions, 
     international peacekeeping operations, and humanitarian 
     missions undertaken by the Department of Defense. The 
     quarterly report shall include an aggregate of all such 
     Department of Defense costs by operation or mission.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall detail in the quarterly 
     reports all efforts made to seek credit against past United 
     Nations expenditures and all efforts made to seek 
     compensation from the United Nations for costs incurred by 
     the Department of Defense in implementing and supporting 
     United Nations activities.
       Sec. 8072. (a) Limitation on Transfer of Defense Articles 
     and Services.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     none of the funds available to the Department of Defense for 
     the current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to 
     transfer to another nation or an international organization 
     any defense articles or services (other than intelligence 
     services) for use in the activities described in subsection 
     (b) unless the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of 
     the Senate are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       (b) Covered Activities.--This section applies to--
       (1) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement 
     operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of 
     the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United 
     Nations Security Council resolution; and
       (2) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
     enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.
       (c) Required Notice.--A notice under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services 
     to be transferred.
       (2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or 
     services to be transferred.
       (3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or 
     supplies--
       (A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of 
     all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve 
     components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be 
     transferred have been met; and
       (B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be 
     transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the 
     President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
       Sec. 8073. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to pay 
     a contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense 
     for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an employee 
     when--
       (1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of 
     the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
       (2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated 
     with a business combination.
       Sec. 8074. None of the funds provided in title II of this 
     Act for ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction'' may be 
     obligated or expended to finance housing for any individual 
     who was a member of the military forces of the Soviet Union 
     or for any individual who is or was a member of the military 
     forces of the Russian Federation.
       Sec. 8075. For purposes of section 1553(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made in 
     this Act under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' shall be considered to be for the same purpose as any 
     subdivision under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' appropriations in any prior year, and the one percent 
     limitation shall apply to the total amount of the 
     appropriation.
       Sec. 8076. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), not more than 
     $14,000,000 appropriated under the heading ``Aircraft 
     Procurement, Air Force'' in Public Law 102-396 which was 
     available and obligated for the B-2 Aircraft Program shall 
     remain available for expenditure and for adjusting 
     obligations for such Program until September 30, 2003.
       Sec. 8077. During the current fiscal year, in the case of 
     an appropriation account of the Department of Defense for 
     which the period of availability for obligation has expired 
     or which has closed under the provisions of section 1552 of 
     title 31, United States Code, and which has a negative 
     unliquidated or unexpended balance, an obligation or an 
     adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current 
     appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or 
     closed account if--
       (1) the obligation would have been properly chargeable 
     (except as to amount) to the expired or closed account before 
     the end of the period of availability or closing of that 
     account;
       (2) the obligation is not otherwise properly chargeable to 
     any current appropriation account of the Department of 
     Defense; and
       (3) in the case of an expired account, the obligation is 
     not chargeable to a current appropriation of the Department 
     of Defense under the provisions of section 1405(b)(8) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, 
     Public Law 101-510, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1551 note): 
     Provided, That in the case of an expired account, if 
     subsequent review or investigation discloses that there was 
     not in fact a negative unliquidated or unexpended balance in 
     the account, any charge to a current account under the 
     authority of this section shall be reversed and recorded 
     against the expired account: Provided further, That the total 
     amount charged to a current appropriation under this section 
     may not exceed an amount equal to one percent of the total 
     appropriation for that account.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8078. Upon enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall make the following transfers of funds: 
     Provided, That the amounts transferred shall be available for 
     the same purposes as the appropriations to which transferred, 
     and for the same time period as the appropriation from which 
     transferred: Provided further, That the amounts shall be 
     transferred between the following appropriations in the 
     amount specified:
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1989/2000'':
       SSN-688 attack submarine program, $3,000,000;
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $1,500,000;
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $8,000,000;
       T-AO fleet oiler program, $3,453,000;
       AOE combat support ship program, $3,600,000;
       For craft, outfitting, and post delivery, $2,019,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1989/2000'':
       SSN-21 attack submarine program, $21,572,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1991/2001'':
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $1,060,000;
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $1,600,000;
       LSD-41 cargo variant ship program, $2,666,000;
       AOE combat support ship program, $7,307,000;
       For craft, outfitting, and post delivery, $12,000,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1991/2001'':
       SSN-21 attack submarine program, $24,633,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1996/2000'':
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $5,592,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1996/2000'':
       SSN-21 attack submarine program, $5,592,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1994/1998'':
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $400,000;
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $1,054,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1995/1999'':
       For craft, outfitting, and post delivery, conversions, and 
     first destination transportation, $715,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1996/2000'':
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $17,513,000;
       For craft, outfitting, and post delivery, conversions, and 
     first destination transportation, $878,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1997/2001'':
       For craft, outfitting, and post delivery, conversions, and 
     first destination transportation, $3,600,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1997/2001'':
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $24,160,000;
       From:

[[Page H5963]]

       Under the heading, ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 1997/
     1999'', $73,531,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Air Force, 1997/1998'', $73,531,000.
       Sec. 8079. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees by 
     February 1, 1998 a detailed report identifying, by amount and 
     by separate budget activity, activity group, subactivity 
     group, line item, program element, program, project, 
     subproject, and activity, any activity for which the fiscal 
     year 1999 budget request was reduced because Congress 
     appropriated funds above the President's budget request for 
     that specific activity for fiscal year 1998.
       Sec. 8080. (a). None of the funds available to the 
     Department of Defense under this Act may be obligated or 
     expended to reimburse a defense contractor for restructuring 
     costs associated with a business combination of the defense 
     contractor that occurs after the date of enactment of this 
     Act unless--
       (1) the auditable savings for the Department of Defense 
     resulting from the restructuring will exceed the costs 
     allowed by a factor of at least two to one, or
       (2) the savings for the Department of Defense resulting 
     from the restructuring will exceed the costs allowed and the 
     Secretary of Defense determines that the business combination 
     will result in the preservation of a critical capability that 
     might otherwise be lost to the Department, and
       (3) the report required by Section 818(e) of Public Law 
     103-337 to be submitted to Congress in 1997 is submitted.
       (b) Not later than April 1, 1998, the Comptroller General 
     shall, in consultation with the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense, and the 
     Secretary of Labor, submit to Congress a report which shall 
     include the following:
       (1) an analysis and breakdown of the restructuring costs 
     paid by or submitted to the Department of Defense to 
     companies involved in business combinations since 1993;
       (2) an analysis of the specific costs associated with 
     workforce reductions;
       (3) an analysis of the services provided to the workers 
     affected by business combinations;
       (4) an analysis of the effectiveness of the restructuring 
     costs used to assist laid off workers in gaining employment;
       (5) in accordance with section 818 of Public Law 103-337, 
     an analysis of the savings reached from the business 
     combination relative to the restructuring costs paid by the 
     Department of Defense.
       (c) The report should set forth recommendations to make 
     this program more effective for workers affected by business 
     combinations and more efficient in terms of the use of 
     Federal dollars.
       Sec. 8081. Funds appropriated in title II of this Act for 
     supervision and administration costs for facilities 
     maintenance and repair, minor construction, or design 
     projects may be obligated at the time the reimbursable order 
     is accepted by the performing activity: Provided, That for 
     the purpose of this section, supervision and administration 
     costs includes all in-house Government cost.
       Sec. 8082. (a) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau may 
     permit the use of equipment of the National Guard Distance 
     Learning Project by any person or entity on a space-
     available, reimbursable basis. The Chief of the National 
     Guard Bureau shall establish the amount of reimbursement to 
     fully recover the costs for such use on a case-by-case basis.
       (b) Amounts collected under subsection (a) shall be 
     credited to funds available for the National Guard Distance 
     Learning Project and be available to defray all costs 
     associated with the use of equipment of the project under 
     that subsection. Such funds shall be available for such 
     purposes without fiscal year limitation.
       Sec. 8083. Using funds available by this Act or any other 
     Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to a 
     determination under section 2690 of title 10, United States 
     Code, may implement cost-effective agreements for required 
     heating facility modernization in the Kaiserslautern Military 
     Community in the Federal Republic of Germany: Provided, That 
     in the City of Kaiserslautern such agreements will include 
     the use of United States anthracite as the base load energy 
     for municipal district heat to the United States Defense 
     installations: Provided further, That at Landstuhl Army 
     Regional Medical Center and Ramstein Air Base, furnished heat 
     may be obtained from private, regional or municipal services, 
     if provisions are included for the consideration of United 
     States coal as an energy source.
       Sec. 8084. In accordance with section 1557 of title 31, 
     United States Code, the following obligated balance shall be 
     exempt from subchapter IV of chapter 15 of such title and 
     shall remain available for expenditure without fiscal year 
     limitation: Funds obligated by the Army for contract number 
     DAK F 40-92-H-5001 from funds made available in the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1992 (Public Law 
     102-172) under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army''.
       Sec. 8085. In accordance with section 1557 of title 31, 
     United States Code, the following obligated balance shall be 
     exempt from subchapter IV of chapter 15 of such title and 
     shall remain available for expenditure without fiscal year 
     limitation: Funds obligated by the Economic Development 
     Administration for EDA Project No. 04-49-04095 from funds 
     made available in the Department of Defense Appropriations 
     Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-189).
       Sec. 8086. None of the funds provided by this Act may be 
     used to pay costs of instruction for an Air Force officer for 
     enrollment commencing during the 1998-1999 academic year in a 
     postgraduate degree program at a civilian educational 
     institution if--
       (1) the degree program to be pursued by that officer is 
     offered by the Air Force Institute of Technology (or was 
     offered by that institute during the 1996-1997 academic 
     year);
       (2) the officer is qualified for enrollment at the Air 
     Force Institute of Technology in that degree program; and
       (3) the number of students commencing that degree program 
     at the Air Force Institute of Technology during the first 
     semester of the 1998-1999 academic year is less than the 
     number of students commencing that degree program for the 
     first semester of the 1996-1997 academic year.
       Sec. 8087. Of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading, ``Environmental Restoration, Air Force'', 
     $10,400,000 shall be deposited into the Foreign Military 
     Sales Trust Fund to the credit of the Canadian Government 
     pursuant to the exchange of notes between the Governments of 
     the United States and Canada concerning environmental clean-
     up at former United States' military installations in Canada.
       Sec. 8088. During the current fiscal year, the amounts 
     which are necessary for the operation and maintenance of the 
     Fisher Houses administered by the Departments of the Army, 
     the Navy, and the Air Force are hereby appropriated, to be 
     derived from amounts which are available in the applicable 
     Fisher House trust fund established under 10 U.S.C. 2221 for 
     the Fisher Houses of each such department.
       Sec. 8089. During the current fiscal year, refunds 
     attributable to the use of the Government travel card by 
     military personnel and civilian employees of the Department 
     of Defense may be credited to operation and maintenance 
     accounts of the Department of Defense which are current when 
     the refunds are received.
       Sec. 8090. During the current fiscal year, not more than a 
     total of $60,000,000 in withdrawal credits may be made by the 
     Marine Corps Supply Management activity group of the Navy 
     Working Capital Fund, Department of Defense Working Capital 
     Funds, to the credit of current applicable appropriations of 
     a Department of Defense activity in connection with the 
     acquisition of critical low density repairables that are 
     capitalized into the Navy Working Capital Fund.
       Sec. 8091. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3902, during the 
     current fiscal year interest penalties may be paid by the 
     Department of Defense from funds financing the operation of 
     the military department or defense agency with which the 
     invoice or contract payment is associated.
       Sec. 8092. At the time the President submits his budget for 
     fiscal year 1999, the Department of Defense shall transmit to 
     the congressional defense committees a budget justification 
     document for the active and reserve Military Personnel 
     accounts, to be known as the ``M-1'', which shall identify, 
     at the budget activity, activity group, and subactivity group 
     level, the amounts requested by the President to be 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense for military 
     personnel in any budget request, or amended budget request, 
     for fiscal year 1999.
       Sec. 8093. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced 
     by $100,000,000 to reflect savings due to excess inventory, 
     to be distributed as follows: ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $15,000,000; and ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', 
     $85,000,000.
       Sec. 8094. The amount otherwise provided in this Act for 
     ``Environmental Restoration, Army'' is hereby reduced by 
     $73,000,000, to reflect funds carried by the Army as a result 
     of shared cleanup costs.
       Sec. 8095. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in title III of this Act is 
     hereby reduced by $50,000,000 to reflect savings from repeal 
     of Section 2403 of title 10, United States Code.
       Sec. 8096. None of the funds in this or any other Act may 
     be used by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency for any 
     mapping, charting, and geodesy activities unless contracts 
     for such services are awarded in accordance with the 
     qualifications based selection process in 40 U.S.C. 541 et 
     seq. and 10 U.S.C. 2855: Provided, That an exception shall be 
     provided for such services that are critical to national 
     security after a written notification has been submitted by 
     the Deputy Secretary of Defense to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.
       Sec. 8097. During the current fiscal year, the Secretary of 
     Defense may award contracts for capital assets having a 
     development or acquisition cost of not less than $100,000 of 
     a Working Capital Fund in advance of the availability of 
     funds in the Working Capital Fund for minor construction, 
     automatic data processing equipment, software, equipment, and 
     other capital improvements.
       Sec. 8098. The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees not later than November 15, 
     1997 an aviation safety plan outlining an appropriate level 
     of navigational safety upgrades for all Department of Defense 
     aircraft and the associated funding profile to install these 
     upgrades in an expeditious manner.

[[Page H5964]]

       Sec. 8099. The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and Senate, not later than April 15, 1998, a report on 
     alternatives for current theater combat simulations: 
     Provided, That this report shall be based on a review and 
     evaluation by the Defense Science Board of the adequacy of 
     the current models used by the Department of Defense for 
     theater combat simulations, with particular emphasis on the 
     tactical warfare (TACWAR) model and the ability of that model 
     to adequately measure airpower, stealth, and other 
     asymmetrical United States warfighting advantages, and shall 
     include the recommendations of the Defense Science Board for 
     improvements to current models and modeling techniques.
       Sec. 8100. None of the funds appropriated in title IV of 
     this Act may be used to procure end-items for delivery to 
     military forces for operational training, operational use or 
     inventory requirements: Provided, That this restriction does 
     not apply to end-items used in development and test 
     activities preceding and leading to acceptance for 
     operational use: Provided further, That this restriction does 
     not apply to programs funded within the National Foreign 
     Intelligence Program: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by 
     certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate that it is in the 
     national security interest to do so.
       Sec. 8101. The budget of the President for fiscal year 1999 
     submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, 
     United States Code, and each annual budget request 
     thereafter, shall include budget activity groups (known as 
     ``subactivities'') in the operation and maintenance accounts 
     of the military departments and other appropriation accounts, 
     as may be necessary, to separately identify all costs 
     incurred by the Department of Defense to support the 
     expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The 
     budget justification materials submitted to Congress in 
     support of the budget of the Department of Defense for fiscal 
     year 1999, and subsequent fiscal years, shall provide 
     complete, detailed estimates for the incremental costs of 
     such expansion.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of title VIII, through page 96, 
line 21, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 96, after line 7, insert the following new sections:
       Sec. 8100A. It is the sense of the Congress that all member 
     nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
     should contribute their proportionate share to pay for the 
     costs of the Partnership for Peace program and for any future 
     costs attributable to the expansion of NATO.
       Sec. 8100B. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     pay for NATO expansion not authorized by law.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment states that members of 
NATO should contribute their fair share for any expansion of NATO in 
Europe. It also states that funds in this bill shall be used for those 
which are authorized by the Congress. Very straightforward and simple.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the 
distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. MURTHA. The chairman and I have discussed this at length, and we 
will fall on our sword trying to get what the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant] wants. We will do everything we can to take care of the 
gentleman from Ohio.
  Is that not right, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would say that we agree completely with what 
this amendment is trying to accomplish. We do have a little concern 
about how this language might fit in with the President's signing of 
the bill. But we do appreciate the gentleman making some changes in the 
language that were recommended.
  With that, we prepared to accept the amendment with the understanding 
that if we hear from the administration, we may have to come back and 
see if there would be additional changes that the gentleman might be 
agreeable to.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Dicks], the distinguished linebacker from the University of 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend, the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], I read his amendment. I think it is a good 
amendment. We will work hard with him with the administration, and I 
hope the House will support his amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in closing out here, 
we need not have a black sinkhole hole for money going to protect 
Europe folks. All we say is, let us go by which we authorize. The 
Congress and people govern. We do not have governance through the White 
House.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Clayton

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous 
consent that it be considered at this time although it addresses a 
portion of the bill not yet read for amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Clayton:
       Page 100, after line 15, insert the following new section:
       Sec. __. The Secretary of the Army may reimburse a member 
     of the Army who was deployed from the United States to Europe 
     in support of operations in Bosnia and who incurred an out-
     of-pocket expense for shipment of a personal item to or from 
     Europe during the period beginning on October 1, 1996, and 
     ending on May 30, 1997, if the shipment of that item, if made 
     after May 30, 1997, would have been provided by the 
     Department of the Army through the Temporary Change of 
     Station (TCS) weight allowance under the Joint Travel 
     Regulation, as in effect after that date.

                              {time}  1330

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken both with the ranking 
minority member and the chairman of the subcommittee, so they are aware 
what the basis of this amendment is. This is an equity issue. It is a 
fairness issue. By approving this amendment, we will authorize the 
Department of the Army to pay for the shipment of personal items which 
the Department itself has paid for before and which now, after some 
persuasion, are again providing for.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman came to us with this 
amendment today. We talked to the staff and we know there has been an 
injustice here. If the gentlewoman will withdraw her amendment, we will 
do everything we can to work this thing out in conference.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I do plan to withdraw it because we do have the 
commitment from both sides to work it out; but if I may proceed, just 
to give the equity reason for it. I wanted our colleagues to know what 
this committee will be doing to try to rectify this issue.
  This is an issue that was caused because there was an administrative 
procedure change which meant that we did not reimburse the National 
Guard or the Army Reserve that went to Bosnia when we had before. So 
there were a number of individuals, National Guard Members who came to 
me saying they had no way of getting their moneys back because there 
was no authority to reimburse them for sending their personal items 
back home.
  What this means: That those men and women serving in our military in 
Bosnia would have to pay it out of their own pockets unless the 
committee works this out. I am delighted that the committee sees the 
value and the equity of ensuring that those who serve us in our Armed 
Forces are not required to take on an extra burden. In the light of 
their cooperation, not only the 125 Reservists and National Guardsmen 
in my district, but some

[[Page H5965]]

4,280 throughout the Nation had to pay for it out of their pockets. 
With this committee correcting this, this will mean that more than 
4,000 people will now be able to have these expenses reimbursed and 
they will not have to assume the obligation of the American people and 
defending our country out of their pocket. I want to thank both the 
chairman and the ranking member for providing the leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to 
engage the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the chairman of the 
subcommittee, in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the Pentagon's plan to 
retire 23 B-52 bombers, roughly 25 percent of the B-52 fleet. In light 
of the uncertain prospects for Russian ratification of START II and the 
continuing need for long-range conventional airpower, I believe it 
would be unwise to make unilateral reductions in the only battle-
tested, dual-capable bomber in the U.S. inventory. I would ask the 
subcommittee chairman if he shares my concerns about the proposed 
reduction in the B-52 fleet.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. As the gentleman knows, in each of the last 4 
years, the subcommittee has supported additional funding to maintain 
the full fleet of B-52's. But I am sure that he is also aware that the 
Senate has included additional funds to keep all 94 B-52's in the 
active inventory. Although the House authorization committee did not 
authorize this for this fiscal year, the action taken by the Senate is 
consistent with this subcommittee's recommendation in recent years.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise to express my strong support for maintaining the 
full fleet of 94 B-52's. In the last decade, over $4 billion has been 
invested to thoroughly modernize the B-52 bomber. The B-52 not only 
supports the air-leg of the nuclear triad, but it is also a potent 
conventional weapon able to carry the complete inventory of smart 
weapons. I assure the gentleman from North Dakota that I will work to 
see that the necessary funding is provided in conference to keep all 94 
B-52's in the active inventory. I have discussed this with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] as well.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman from Florida and I thank the 
gentleman from Washington. I look forward to working with them as this 
bill moves into conference.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 198, the pending business 
is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 222, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 336]

                               AYES--200

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Camp
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hilliard
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     White
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--222

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cummings
     Dingell
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Gonzalez
     LaTourette
     McInnis
     Ney
     Riley
     Schiff
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1355

  Messrs. BRADY, BONO, PITTS, Ms. WATERS, and Mrs. JOHNSON of 
Connecticut changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. STENHOLM changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately on rollcall 336, I did not

[[Page H5966]]

verify the electronic vote. It was my intention to vote ``no'' on the 
Obey amendment as a strong supporter of the B-2 and I either 
inadvertently or incorrectly voted ``yes.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I was unfortunately detained for 
rollcall vote No. 336 to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. 
Had I been present I would have voted ``yes''. As my voting record will 
reflect, I have consistently voted against additional B-2 funding.
  I was not present for the vote because I was testifying before the 
National Capital Memorial Commission in support of my legislation, H.R. 
1608, the Pyramid of Remembrance Act. As you know, H.R. 1608 would 
establish a memorial in the District of Columbia or its surrounding 
areas for soldiers who died in undeclared military conflicts and 
training exercises. I am proud to report that the idea for this bill 
came from high school students at Riverside High School in my district. 
Since its introduction, the bill has gained bipartisan support in the 
House of Representatives. I am looking forward to working with the 
leadership in moving the bill through the legislative process so that 
the lives of these brave and selfless soldiers are not forgotten.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 8102. (a) Limitation.--Funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available for the Department of Defense for any fiscal 
     year may not be obligated for the deployment of any ground 
     elements of the United States Armed Forces in the Republic of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina after--
       (1) June 30, 1998; or
       (2) such later date as may be specifically prescribed by 
     law after the date of the enactment of this Act, based upon a 
     request from the President or otherwise as the Congress may 
     determine.
       (b) Exceptions.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to the extent necessary to support (1) a limited number 
     of United States diplomatic facilities in existence on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and (2) noncombat military 
     personnel sufficient only to advise the commanders North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization peacekeeping operations in the 
     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
       (c) Construction of Section.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be deemed to restrict the authority of the President under 
     the Constitution to protect the lives of United States 
     citizens.
       (d) Limitation on Support for Law Enforcement Activities in 
     Bosnia.--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Defense for any fiscal year 
     may be obligated or expended after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act for the conduct of, or direct support for, law 
     enforcement activities in the Republic of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina, except for the training of law enforcement 
     personnel or to prevent imminent loss of life.
       (e) Presidential Report on Political and Military 
     Conditions in Bosnia.--(1) Not later than December 15, 1997, 
     the President shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     political and military conditions in the Republic of Bosnia 
     and Herzegovina (hereafter in this subsection referred to as 
     Bosnia-Herzegovina). Of the funds available to the Secretary 
     of Defense for fiscal year 1998 for the operation of United 
     States ground forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina during that fiscal 
     year, no more than 60 percent may be expended before the 
     report is submitted.
       (2) The report under paragraph (1) shall include a 
     discussion of the following:
       (A) An identification of the specific steps taken by the 
     United States Government to transfer the United States 
     portion of the peacekeeping mission in the Republic of Bosnia 
     and Herzegovina to European allied nations or organizations.
       (B) A detailed discussion of the proposed role and 
     involvement of the United States in supporting peacekeeping 
     activities in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     following the withdrawal of United States ground forces 
     from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina pursuant to 
     subsection (a).
       (C) A detailed explanation and timetable for carrying out 
     the President's commitment to withdraw all United States 
     ground forces from Bosnia-Herzegovina by the end of June 
     1998, including the planned date of commencement and 
     completion of the withdrawal.
       (D) The date on which the transition from the multinational 
     force known as the Stabilization Force to the planned 
     multinational successor force to be known as the Deterrence 
     Force will occur and how the decision as to that date will 
     impact the estimates of costs associated with the operation 
     of United States ground forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina during 
     fiscal year 1998 as contained in the President's budget for 
     fiscal year 1998.
       (E) The military and political considerations that will 
     affect the decision to carry out such a transition.
       (F) Any plan to maintain or expand other Bosnia-related 
     operations (such as the operation designated as Operation 
     Deliberate Guard) if tensions in Bosnia-Herzegovina remain 
     sufficient to delay the transition from the Stabilization 
     Force to the Deterrence Force and the estimated cost 
     associated with each such operation.
       (G) Whether allied nations participating in the Bosnia 
     mission have similar plans to increase and maintain troop 
     strength or maintain ground forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina and, 
     if so, the identity of each such country and a description of 
     that country's plans.
       (3) As used in this subsection, the term ``Stabilization 
     Force'' (referred to as ``SFOR'') means the follow-on force 
     to the Implementation Force (known as ``IFOR'') in the 
     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and other countries in the 
     region, authorized under United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 1008 (December 12, 1996).

                              {time}  1400

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1998''.


                    Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
       Page 100, after line 15, insert the following new section.
       Sec. 8103. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract 
     with a contractor that is subject to the reporting 
     requirement set forth in subsection (d) of section 4212 of 
     title 38, United States Code, but has not submitted the most 
     recent report required by such subsection for 1997 or a 
     subsequent year.

  Mr. SOLOMON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. Discrimination 
in America is wrong. It goes against everything we stand for as a 
nation. What is especially ugly is discrimination against disabled 
veterans, and Vietnam veterans, in particular. Mr. Chairman, we owe 
these men and women the best of the very best, fair and open 
consideration for employment.
  A couple of years ago we passed a program called Vet 100, which 
requires contractors to report their hiring practices of veterans, 
disabled veterans and Vietnam veterans. Since that time, there were 
25,000 contractors across this Nation that were either intentionally or 
unintentionally in noncompliance for this law. After an amendment we 
passed last year, we brought 8,000 of those contractors, simply because 
they were made aware of it, into compliance in the program.
  We are asking now that this be attached to this particular bill so 
that it will bring notice to all of the contractors and make them aware 
so they can again comply with this law, so we can begin to hire these 
disabled American veterans, along with Vietnam veterans.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the very distinguished gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Young], the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman has stated, last year we did accept 
this amendment. We thought it would work fine. It has worked partially. 
I think it is important that we continue this language. The chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, the very distinguished chairman, has worked 
with us on writing the language in such a way I think as will be very 
effective. I am very, very happy to accept this amendment. I think it 
is something that ought to be done.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I certainly thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman. With him 
having said that, I am getting a signal from the very distinguished 
ranking member of the subcommittee, a great former marine.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask consideration on my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment offered by Mr. Obey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 100, after line 15, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 8103. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to approve or license the sale of F-22 advanced 
     tactical fighter to any foreign government.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this country is going to spend $85 billion to 
build

[[Page H5967]]

a new generation of fighter aircraft, the F-22, and we are told that 
the reason we must do that is because we have sold so many of our F-
16's around the world, and so many of our F-15's, that we now have to 
stay ahead of the capability of other countries. So we are told that in 
order to do that we have to make this large expenditure.
  Mr. Chairman, all this amendment says is that if we are going to go 
ahead and spend that $85 billion, that we ought not to make the same 
mistake we made in the past. That is why this amendment says that no F-
22's can be sold abroad.
  The reason I am urging that we adopt this amendment is that the 
contractor, Lockheed, has already been quoted several times saying that 
they fully plan to market the F-22 abroad, and the Air Force is also 
indicating they are looking at foreign sales as a means of reducing the 
overall cost of the program.
  Everything that we know about this plane tells us it is going to be a 
technological marvel. I would like to know why on Earth we would even 
consider selling this plane abroad if the purpose of building it in the 
first place is to react to the fact that we have sold abroad so many 
sophisticated fighters in the past that we now have to build this new 
plane in order to stay ahead of the people we have sold it to.
  Very simply, all I am saying is that we have to make a choice. We 
either stand up for America's interest and support this amendment, or 
stand up for the contractor's interest and oppose it, because this is 
an argument between those of us who believe that if we are going to 
spend $85 billion, we ought to keep that technology at home, versus 
those who say, ``Well, sorry, but we have not learned a thing from the 
last round. So even though we are being told we have to build this 
plane because we have sold so many sophisticated aircraft around the 
world, we are willing to ignore past history and do it all over 
again.''
  So I think the purpose of the amendment is self-evident. I cannot 
imagine, I cannot imagine any reason for turning down this amendment 
except that the contractor wants to sell these planes abroad, and has 
therefore convinced people that we ought to make the same mistake over 
again.
  Anybody who is paid what we are is being paid enough to avoid a 
stupid mistake like that. I would urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the first I have heard of this amendment. I 
will probably vote for this amendment. I will tell the Members why. 
This will really fundamentally fall on a lot of deaf ears in this 
House, and maybe it will make a few people yawn. I have to tell the 
Members that I think one of the most serious things that is going on in 
the world today is the unregulated, the unprecedented level of arms 
sales that exists in the world today.
  I support the F-22 because I think it is absolutely essential that we 
maintain air superiority in any time of trouble for the United States 
and our allies. I think the F-22 is essentially the next leap of 
technology that allows us to maintain air superiority. I, of course, do 
not share that view on the necessity of the stealth bomber, but I do 
share that view on tactical aircraft.
  But frankly, if we are going to develop a sophisticated tactical 
aircraft, to develop the next level of sophisticated fighter aircraft 
designed to give the United States clear air superiority, then to turn 
around and sell that technology to other countries forces us into the 
next level of tactical aircraft at great cost.
  Look, Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the aisle, do 
Members not understand what we are doing in the world with the sale of 
all this sophisticated weaponry, designed to a large degree to preserve 
assembly lines? What we do is we give enemies weapons with hair-trigger 
mechanisms that allow each side to have more lethality, to have more 
power, more quickness, less warning time. Whenever conflicts arise, it 
denies us the time we want in order to resolve those conflicts without 
death.
  I also would point out that the greatest fear I have for our children 
in my lifetime is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I 
worry that some day, at some point, some world leader or some group of 
terrorists will get their hands on these lethal weapons of mass 
destruction that can be used without the consideration of loss of flesh 
and blood of people on any part of this globe. I worry that at some 
point in our lifetime we will wake up one morning and find out that two 
brutal enemies have used these weapons against one another.
  I do not know whether it is true, the article that was written in one 
of the magazines several years ago about the almost conflict between 
India and Pakistan. But I do not want to wake up one morning, having 
armed these enemies to the teeth with increasingly effective weapons 
with increased lethality, to find out that somehow we played a role in 
it. That does not mean we do not need to develop the sophisticated 
weapons to guarantee the national security of the United States and our 
allies, but it does mean we need to be careful with this technology.
  I wish we would all step back for a second and think about what our 
policies are on arms sales, what our commitment is to protect those 
elements that contribute to the weapons of mass destruction, to deny 
them from individuals in this world who would use them against the 
cause of order and peace and humanity.
  I would urge everybody to march to this floor today and deny the 
ability of the defense industry to begin to sell this weapon of 
sophistication that the United States needs. Let us protect that 
technology. Let us slow down the arms race. Let us do it for our 
children. Let us not just do it for ourselves, let us also do it for 
our children.
  I would hope that on a bipartisan basis, we could begin to get a 
handle on this problem of proliferation of weapons and of sky-high arms 
sales. There are better ways in this world to make money, to make 
profits, than to allow this seemingly free flow of technology. Let us 
stand up for national security, but let us also stand up for peace.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, my original thought was, and the gentleman from Texas 
Mr. Martin Frost was quite concerned about this amendment, but actually 
when we look at the facts, it really would not have any impact because 
this is a 1-year bill. Certainly we have to send a message that when we 
have a technological superiority, it is something we want to look at 
very closely.
  Mr. Chairman, I would, with reservations, accept this amendment, and 
hope we could work something out in conference.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have talked to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] about this. He made several changes that we thought were 
important to make to this so it applied properly to the bill. Having 
done that, we have been prepared to accept this amendment, and we are 
happy to hear from the gentleman from Ohio, but we are prepared to 
accept the amendment.
  From the leadership of the subcommittee, we accept the amendment, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I will only speak for a short amount of time. Mr. 
Chairman, I understand what the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is 
attempting to do here. I would caution him, and I will support the 
amendment, one of the most troubling times I had in my military career 
was being outspoken about letting F-14's go to the Shah of Iran.

                              {time}  1415

  I made a statement that we were being blackmailed at the time. This 
was at a time when there was an oil embargo. We remember the long gas 
lines we had in this country because of the shortage. I said, now, Iran 
is not Arabic and it is the Arabs that were holding us hostage over 
oil. Iran is Persian. But yet they will not have to pay for one single 
one of those F-14's because all they have to do is raise the price of 
oil by a cent and they get them free.
  I said the second point is that as a fighter pilot, I do not want to 
have to look down the barrels of those F-14's if the shah ever falls. 
Well, I felt like Billy Mitchell after that happened because we did 
look down the barrels of those F-14's.

[[Page H5968]]

  So I understand the intent of the gentleman and support it. But in 
future language, I would ask the gentleman to be very cautious because 
there are countries that I have flown with, like South Korea, some of 
our allies that have F-16s, England, I would not give them to France, 
personal opinion. They sell arms to every one of our enemies. There are 
socialists and Communists there now, and I would not give them a dime 
or any weapons. But there are countries that I think that, if we are 
flying there in a conflict and some of the NATO countries that would 
ally, and I do not care if it is a British pilot taking a Mig off my 
tail or someone else, then I would like that support. But I support the 
gentleman's amendment and I understand the merit behind it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for supporting the 
amendment and say that I recognize that there are some countries I 
would not mind providing sophisticated weapons to, but I think we need 
a policy ahead of time before we build these systems so that we know 
exactly who is going to get them and that we are assured that they are 
going to be provided on as limited a basis as possible around the 
world.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to the Nadler amendment to cut important funding for the F-
22 fighter. The F-22 is the Air Force's next generation premier fighter 
and is intended to replace the aging F-15 fighter which has been in use 
for nearly 30 years. The next generation aircraft will have both air-
to-air and air-to-ground fighter capabilities and will ensure our air 
superiority in the 21st century.
  A cut of the size proposed by this amendment would have a devastating 
effect on the development and production of the F-22. In fact, the Air 
Force estimates that a $420 million cut in the program would result in 
a major program restructure and actually result in an increase of costs 
in the out years of $7.7 billion because of the restructuring of the 
current development and production timeline.
  Let me close by quoting Gen. Ronald Fogelman, the Chief of Staff of 
the Air Force:

       The F-22 will continue to ensure our continued dominance of 
     the aerial arena and protect our forces across the entire 
     spectrum of conflict. No United States soldier has been lost 
     to enemy air power on over 40 years, and the F-22 will 
     continue to uphold that record.

  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and support our 
continued aerial dominance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows: 
       Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:


         united states man and the biosphere program limitation

       Sec. 8079. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be made available for the United 
     States Man and the Biosphere Program, or related projects.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that this will not take any 
time. The purpose of this amendment just simply to limit DOD funds to 
not be spent on a totally unauthorized, never approved program from 
this Congress or any other Congress. We have voted now four times in 
this body to uphold this policy. This is simply an amendment that would 
extend that policy to the Department of Defense. It is my understanding 
the chairman as well as the ranking member have accepted this 
amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we are very 
familiar with this issue. We do support the amendment. We hope that it 
will be agreed to.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, 47 of these biosphere 
reserves were established before the public even knew what was 
happening. One of these was established in the northern part of the 
congressional district I represent in the Adirondack Mountains without 
me or any local government officials ever knowing about it. That was 
outrageous. These biosphere reserves violate individual property 
rights, and they give executive branch political appointees the 
authority to make property decisions in place of these individual 
landowners or even local zoning ordinances. I think that is outrageous. 
I am so happy that the gentleman is offering the amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the body to support the Coburn-
Peterson amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: Page 
     100, after line 15, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 8103. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act for the Department of Defense 
     specimen repository described in subsection (b) may be used 
     for any purpose except in accordance with the requirement in 
     paragraph numbered 3 of the covered Department of Defense 
     policy memorandum that specifically provides that permissible 
     uses of specimen samples in the repository are limited to the 
     following purposes:
       (1) Identification of human remains.
       (2) Internal quality assurance activities to validate 
     processes for collection, maintenance and analysis of 
     samples.
       (3) A purpose for which the donor of the sample (or 
     surviving next-of-kin) provides consent.
       (4) As compelled by other applicable law in a case in which 
     all of the following conditions are present:
       (A) The responsible Department of Defense official has 
     received a proper judicial order or judicial authorization.
       (B) The specimen sample is needed for the investigation or 
     prosecution of a crime punishable by one year or more of 
     confinement.
       (C) No reasonable alternative means for obtaining a 
     specimen for DNA profile analysis is available.
       (D) The use is approved by the Assistant Secretary of 
     Defense (Health Affairs) after consultation with the 
     Department of Defense General Counsel.
       (b) The specimen repository referred to in subsection (a) 
     is the repository that was established pursuant to Deputy 
     Secretary of Defense Memorandum 47803, dated December 16, 
     1991, and designated as the ``Armed Forces Repository of 
     Specimen Samples for the Identification of Remains'' by 
     paragraph numbered 4 in the covered Department of Defense 
     policy memorandum.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the covered Department of 
     Defense policy memorandum is the memorandum of the Assistant 
     Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) for the Secretary of 
     the Army, dated April 2, 1996, issued pursuant to law which 
     states as its subject ``Policy Refinements for the Armed 
     Forces Repository of Specimen Samples for the Identification 
     of Remains''.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an 
amendment which simply aligns our funding priorities with the current 
Department of Defense policies that protect the information in its DNA 
data bank for soldiers. The Department of Defense operates the Armed 
Forces repository specimen samples for identification of remains.
  This DNA data bank currently holds millions of blood samples for both 
active and inactive personnel. This pool of genetic data is one of the 
largest in the entire world. Health, life and disability insurers might 
soon try to flex some muscle in obtaining sensitive information. 
Heightened concerns have been raised over the last year about the many 
ways that people can be discriminated against based on their genetic 
profile. Soldiers were not free from those same worries regarding blood 
samples in this DNA data bank.
  The Pentagon has always maintained that such information was 
collected only to identify the remains of soldiers killed in combat. 
But many of my colleagues may recall that last year two marines were 
court-martialed for refusing to provide blood samples to the DNA data 
bank. They were fearful of inadequate privacy protections for the 
sensitive information being obtained from their DNA. The Pentagon as a 
result took the proper steps to revise its

[[Page H5969]]

policy and instituted several new conditions on the use of DNA in the 
data bank, including limiting them to identify human remains, 
investigate crimes, purposes for which the donor and next of kin 
provide consent, plus an approved use by the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense and health.
  I had spoken to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young], as well as to the ranking member. I believe that 
this amendment will be accepted. But I just would like to mention, the 
truth is that the current rules and regulations that determine how your 
DNA data is going to be utilized at the Department of Defense is really 
at the discretion of the secretary.
  I would urge both the chairman as well as the ranking member to take 
actions, I hope, in the conference to make certain that this does not 
become an arbitrary policy. This kind of data can be used by private 
companies or others at the decision of the secretary that could have 
devastating consequences for any of the soldiers who happen to be 
ordered to provide those DNA samples.
  I would hope that the chairman would be willing to institute a policy 
where no variation other than the specific purposes which are currently 
in this year's bill, could be varied without the consent of the 
Congress of the United States and the signing into law by the 
President. I think that this is an entirely, it is a new issue, but it 
is one that is very, very important for the personal privacy of the 
soldiers that choose to serve this country.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman and I have 
discussed earlier, we are happy to accept this amendment as we did last 
year, and the new issue that he raises I think is a legitimate issue. 
We would be more than happy to address it during the conference.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to request a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young] regarding the fate of the Advanced Self Protection 
Jammer radar system.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to address the 
concerns of the gentleman from Maryland about this program.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the bill does not 
include funding for the Advanced Self Protection Jammer which is 
recognized as the finest self-protection jamming system in production 
today. Following the 1995 shootdown of the Navy pilot Scott O'Grady in 
Bosnia, ASPJ were deployed in aircraft in the Bosnian theater to 
correct the self protection deficiency under which our pilots were 
operating.
  Mr. Chairman, the ASPJ proved to be an effective tactical aircraft 
countermeasure in the Bosnian theater.
  Additional purchases of the system were recently authorized by the 
Committee on National Security. Shortage of the ASPJ's means that the 
Navy cannot equip all of its F-14D and F/A-18C/D planes with this 
system widely demanded by the Navy and Marine Corps pilots. Most of 
these planes, which will be in the fleet well into the next century, 
are now vulnerable. The Navy can only equip 72 aircraft with the ASPJ, 
although it has a requirement for deployment of this system on over 500 
F-14D's and F/A-18C/D's. I hope the chairman will consider providing 
the Navy and Marine Corps with the funds necessary to equip the 
forward-deployed F-14D and F/A-18C/D squadrons with this system.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I appreciate the gentleman's concern for the system and its 
potential benefits for the pilots. The ASPJ is a valuable system. I 
share the gentleman's concern and will work with my colleagues on the 
committee and with the Department of Defense on this issue as this bill 
moves forward.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.


             Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York.

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
       At the end of the bill add the following new section:
       Sec.   . In the paragraph entitled ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-Wide,'' after ``$10,066,956,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000) (reduced by $1,000,000).''.

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, in 1988, Congress passed and 
the President signed into law a requirement that the Department of 
Defense report details of crimes, including rape and sexual assault, 
committed within their jurisdiction to the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation.
  However, the Department of Defense has failed to comply with this 
law. That means that there are thousands of crimes committed on base 
and off base by members of the armed services and others that are never 
reported to the FBI. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to put in the Record a 
letter from the general counsel of the Department of Defense and other 
press articles on this which state that they are looking at this, that 
they would like to proceed forward, but that there is a problem with 
funding.
  My amendment provides $1 million to the Department of Defense so that 
they could collect and report these statistics. The money comes from 
the operation and maintenance budget. I hope that my amendment will be 
considered in the conference report. I thank the gentleman from Florida 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania for their support and their 
commitment to work on this in conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following:
                                            General Counsel of the


                                        Department of Defense,

                                     Washington, DC, May 27, 1997.
     Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mrs. Maloney: This further responds to your letter to 
     the Secretary of Defense, dated February 26, 1997. In my 
     interim reply, dated March 11, 1997, I informed you that I 
     had asked the Judge Advocate General of the Army to provide 
     me information on certain cases you mentioned in your letter. 
     I now have this information and am prepared to respond to 
     your questions.
       On October 24, 1995, then-Representative Dornan wrote the 
     Secretary of Defense requesting an investigation of 
     allegations made by Mr. Russell Carollo in a series of 
     articles in the Dayton Daily News. After review by the 
     Service Judge Advocates General and my office, I replied to 
     Mr. Dornan on April 23, 1996. Your February 26 letter asks 
     follow-up questions based on my reply to Mr. Dornan. I will 
     address your questions in the same order as I replied to Mr. 
     Dornan's inquiry.
       Do many accused sex offenders avoid prosecution or escape 
     criminal punishment? You have asked whether the Department of 
     Defense disputes the validity of the ``hard facts or 
     statistics'' in Mr. Carollo's articles. Mr. Carollo was 
     highly selective in the statistical data he chose to publish. 
     Mr. Carollo's published figures on sex crime complaints 
     included cases where the perpetrators were unknown and 
     involving civilian suspects who were not subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the military justice system. In those cases, 
     it was not possible for a complaint to result in a court-
     martial conviction. Also, the offense ``titled'' on a 
     complaint form or investigation report is often not the same 
     offense that is formally charged. The decision on what title 
     to use is made by an investigator at an early stage of the 
     investigation. A formal charge, however, is preferred after 
     full investigation and proof analysis by a military 
     prosecutor. A formal charge is only referred to a court-
     martial after additional legal review, and this review may 
     produce other changes. Even assuming that a court-martial 
     charge reflects the same offense in the complaint, there may 
     be a court-martial conviction for a lesser (but nonetheless 
     serious) crime. For example, an accused may be acquitted of a 
     rape charge, but found guilty of attempted rape or assault 
     with intent to commit rape. Acquittal of a principal charge, 
     but conviction of a lesser one, is a

[[Page H5970]]

     process that goes on every day in every jurisdiction in the 
     United States, where each element of any charged offense must 
     be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
       The military does not prosecute rape charges in 
     ``misdemeanor courts'' or administrative hearings. If a 
     complaint of rape is not prosecuted at a general court-
     martial, there is a reason and that reason is grounded in the 
     evidence. A case may begin with a rape allegation, but end in 
     another, lesser charge prosecuted at a special court-martial, 
     nonjudicial punishment action, or other administrative 
     action. In another case, the quality of the evidence may 
     persuade military authorities to accept an accused's offer to 
     separate from the Service (with an Under Other Than Honorable 
     Conditions Discharge) rather than face a court-martial. If 
     one of these actions happens, it is because particular 
     circumstances make it appropriate. If a rape charge is 
     supported by sufficient evidence for conviction, that charge 
     is referred to a general court-martial as is fitting for a 
     crime of that seriousness.
       In Mr. Carlo's articles and associated correspondence, we 
     have seen many comparisons of the military justice system 
     with the ``civilian judicial system'' that reflect a 
     misunderstanding of both. A monolithic ``civilian judicial 
     system'' does not exist. There are fifty-one such systems in 
     the United States, the Federal system (including the 
     commonwealths and territories) and one for each state. In 
     none of these systems does a complaint of rape automatically 
     result in a trial, conviction, and long prison sentence for 
     the defendant. In each of the civilian systems, just as in 
     the military, prosecutors must make decisions based on the 
     quality of the evidence before them. If a case is prosecuted 
     as a rape, a civilian court must determine guilt based on the 
     evidence before it. In doing so, the court applies a ``beyond 
     reasonable doubt'' standard of proof, just like a court-
     martial. If there is a conviction for rape, or of a lesser 
     offense, a civilian court then determines a sentence based on 
     the particular circumstances of the crime and the offender, 
     just as a court-martial does.
       One significant difference between the military justice 
     system and its civilian counterparts concerns the 
     availability of alternative actions when there is 
     insufficient evidence to prosecute in court. In any civilian 
     jurisdiction, if a prosecutor or grand jury decides not to 
     prosecute, nothing happens to the alleged offender. In the 
     military, if the evidence is insufficient for a court-martial 
     prosecution, commanders still have several options, any of 
     which may result in significant sanction. The use of these 
     options should not be cited as evidence that the military 
     does not take crimes as seriously as in civilian 
     jurisdictions, when these actions are not even available to 
     civilian authorities.
       In your February 26 letter, you discussed several Army 
     cases at Fort Carson, Colorado, and Fort Leonard Wood, 
     Missouri. According to information provided by the Judge 
     Advocate General of the Army, much of what you have been told 
     about these cases is incorrect. Moreover, these cases are 
     excellent illustrations of how, in any system, each case must 
     be judged on its own specific facts.
       Your letter states that Army investigators at Fort Carson 
     ``found substantial evidence for claims of rape against 13 
     soldiers in 1995 and 1996,'' yet only two were tried and five 
     others received nonjudicial punishment. According to the Army 
     Judge Advocate General's information, this statement is not 
     accurate. Of the thirteen cases, in one the subject was a 
     civilian, over whom the military had no jurisdiction, and in 
     another the perpetrator was never identified. Of the 
     remaining eleven cases, the State of Colorado assumed 
     jurisdiction of two. In one of these, the State treated it as 
     a domestic violence case. Of the remaining nine, in three 
     cases the alleged victims either recanted their accusations 
     or refused to cooperate after making an initial statement. In 
     one of these, however, a soldier received nonjudicial 
     punishment for consensual sodomy with another soldier's wife, 
     an offense to which he confessed in his statement to 
     investigators. The other two cases resulted in no 
     disciplinary action. Of the remaining six cases, Army 
     prosecutors determined the evidence was insufficient to go 
     forward with trial in three cases, and three cases went to 
     court-martial. Of the three soldiers who were tried, one 
     was acquitted of rape, but convicted of consensual sodomy 
     and indecent acts, and sentenced to hard labor without 
     confinement. Two soldiers were convicted of rape. One of 
     these was sentenced to 28 years. In the other, the accused 
     (First Sergeant David Medeiros) received a sentence of 
     only reduction to staff sergeant (two pay grades).
       Of the thirteen Fort Carson cases, the only apparent 
     anomaly is the Medeiros case. I will not speculate as to the 
     reasons for such a light sentence for the crime of rape, as I 
     was not at the trial and do not have detailed knowledge of 
     the evidence. However, you should be aware that the alleged 
     victim in the Medeiros case later recanted her trial 
     testimony and claimed her sex with Medeiros was consensual.
       Concerning the Fort Leonard Wood cases, your letter states 
     that the post commander, Major General Ballard, reversed the 
     ``sexual assault'' convictions of three soldiers, 
     substituting administrative discharges. You asked ``[w]hat 
     right did [General] Ballard have to reverse convictions?''
       General Ballard had the powers and duties of a general 
     court-martial convening authority, conferred by Congress 
     under several articles of the Uniform Code of Military 
     Justice. As convening authority, General Ballard had 
     ``authority . . . to modify the findings and sentence of a 
     court-martial [as] a matter of command prerogative involving 
     [his] sole discretion. . . .'' Art. 60(c)(1), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 860(c)(1). The Judge Advocate General of the Army 
     informs me that General Ballard exercised his discretion in 
     these three cases, after legal advice from his staff judge 
     advocate, to reach what he thought was an appropriate result 
     under unusual circumstances.
       The three Fort Leonard Wood cases are connected. None 
     involved ``sexual assault.'' They involved three young 
     soldiers dating, and having consensual sex with, three 
     underage teenage girls. Two of the girls were not living at 
     home, but had taken up with a local ``biker gang.'' In the 
     other case, the girl's mother had introduced her daughter to 
     the soldier in a bar. All the sexual conduct occurred off-
     post, but the local Missouri prosecutor declined to 
     prosecute. However, the Army prosecuted the soldiers at 
     special courts-martial for ``carnal knowledge,'' that is, 
     consensual sex with a minor. See Art. 120(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 920(b). Each soldier's court-martial sentenced him to 
     reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, and restriction to 
     post, but did not impose either confinement or a bad-conduct 
     discharge. General Ballard, using his powers under law as a 
     convening authority, determined the best interests of the 
     Army would be served by approving administrative discharges 
     in lieu of the court-martial convictions. In each case, the 
     soldier received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 
     Discharge, which deprives the soldier of entitlement to many 
     benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 
     Such a discharge also carries a social stigma.
       I also invite your attention to data available from the 
     United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, 
     Kansas. The USDB is the central facility for long-term 
     confinement for prisoners from all Services. Of the 1,023 
     inmates at the USDB, 495 are serving sentences for sex 
     crimes--almost half the prison population and nearly double 
     the next category (homicide, 256 inmates). The Army reports 
     that 1,392 soldiers have been tried by courts-martial for sex 
     crimes since 1991. Of these, 870 have been convicted, with an 
     average confinement sentence of just over 6.5 years. Of 
     these, 253 were convicted of rape, with an average 
     confinement sentence of 12.2 years.
       I hope this discussion has shown that statistics and 
     anecdotes do not necessarily tell an accurate story, 
     especially when the statistics are incomplete and the 
     anecdotes are, at best, one-sided or, at worst, wrong. Mr. 
     Carollo's fundamental premise is that the military lets an 
     unacceptably high number of sex offenders off (either 
     completely or with light punishment) out of apathy, 
     investigative incompetence, and/or prosecutorial 
     indifference. As I emphasized in my letter to Mr. Dornan, 
     nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that 
     military investigators, prosecutors, convening authorities, 
     judges, and court-martial members deal with real cases, in 
     real time, involving real people as accused and alleged 
     victims, Every case is different and every decision must be 
     made on its own merits.
       Does the military fail to report many criminal records to 
     the FBI as required by law? In my letter to Mr. Dornan, I 
     acknowledged that the Services' investigative arms had not 
     consistently complied with Department of Defense Inspector 
     General Memorandum 10, dated March 25, 1987, which requires 
     submission of fingerprint cards to the FBI in certain cases. 
     I also described an evaluation of Memorandum 10 compliance by 
     the Inspector General, as mandated by section 555 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. That 
     evaluation is now complete and the Inspector General's report 
     is available. That study confirmed that the Services have not 
     done well in complying with Memorandum 10.
       In November 1996, the Inspector General replaced Memorandum 
     10 with another memorandum clarifying the Services' reporting 
     requirements. Moreover, the Inspector General intends to 
     replace this memorandum with a Department of Defense 
     instruction. A draft instruction is presently in the 
     coordination process within the Department of Defense. When 
     issued, the instruction will clearly state required actions 
     by Department of Defense law enforcement organizations.
       In a related area, you have also asked about the 
     Department's progress providing Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) 
     statistics to the FBI. The UCR is part of the National 
     Incident-Based Crime Reporting System (NIBRS). The Department 
     is now implementing the Defense Incident-Based Reporting 
     System (DIBRS). NIBRS information will be reported by DIBRS 
     along with other information of special significance to the 
     Department of Defense. On October 15, 1996, the Deputy 
     Secretary of Defense signed DoD Directive 7730.47, Defense 
     Incident-Based Reporting System. While many DIBRS issues are 
     still under review, we expect the Services will begin 
     reporting this year and hope to have the system fully on-line 
     by early 1998.
       Your letter also states that you ``understand that the 
     military can expunge criminal records from the FBI's 
     database,'' and asks for information about such expungements. 
     The military has no authority to ``expunge'' any record from 
     the FBI database. However, a Military Department can correct 
     an erroneous record and inform the FBI of that correction, 
     causing a corresponding correction in the FBI database.

[[Page H5971]]

       Department of Justice regulations permit a person, on 
     request and verification of identity, to review his or her 
     information in a Department of Justice criminal history 
     record information system. If a person believes the system 
     contains incorrect or incomplete information, he or she may 
     submit a correction or update. An individual usually applies 
     to the agency that contributed the questioned information. A 
     person may also make a request for correction to the FBI 
     Identification Division, which will forward the request to 
     the concerned agency. If the agency agrees that the record 
     should be corrected, it notifies the FBI and the FBI will 
     make the necessary changes.
       Do victims of violent crime continue to be victimized by 
     the military justice system? As I described to Mr. Dornan, 
     the process of a criminal trial in any court is a difficult 
     one, especially for victims and their families. This is 
     particularly true with respect to sex crimes, which often 
     involve intensely personal facts. While no court system 
     intentionally seeks to harm victims, such harm is often a 
     regrettable result. Recognizing this, each Service has a 
     victim assistance program that compares favorably with 
     federal civilian and state programs.
       Concerning your suggestion to create an ``ombudsman'' for 
     servicemembers, comment at this time would be premature. As 
     you know, one aspect of the Secretary of Army's pending 
     inquiry into sexual harassment is the mechanism for reporting 
     complaints. When the Army's inquiry is complete, the 
     Department of Defense will review its recommendations for 
     application to all Services.
       Is the military's judicial system plagued by sketchy 
     records, secret proceedings, and abuse of discretionary power 
     given commanders? I respectfully disagree with your 
     characterization of my reply to this question from Mr. Dornan 
     as ``terse'' and ``contradict[ing] the facts shown by the 
     Dayton Daily News.'' As I explained to Mr. Dornan, a court-
     martial is a public trial unless closed for a specific lawful 
     reason (such as to prevent public disclosure of classified 
     information). I also reiterate that military law and Service 
     regulations provide for records of trials. As for records of 
     nonjudicial and administrative proceedings, there continues 
     to be a misunderstanding that I hope I can resolve here.
       The Privacy Act of 1974 prohibits disclosure of personnel 
     records except under specified circumstances. This is not 
     military ``secrecy,'' but a law that the Department of 
     Defense, including the Military Departments, is bound to 
     follow just like other federal agencies. Nonjudicial and 
     administrative actions are evidenced in personnel records 
     covered by the Privacy Act and, unless an exception applies, 
     may not be released under the Freedom of Information Act. As 
     required by the Privacy Act, the Services did not disclose 
     information about such actions to Mr. Carollo when he was 
     researching his articles. It appears that Mr. Carollo then 
     characterized these personnel records as ``secret'' as a 
     literary device to imply that something sinister was going on 
     in the military. Unless the Congress amends the Privacy Act 
     to exempt military personnel records, such records may not be 
     released except under the limited circumstances provided in 
     the Privacy Act. As I emphasized in my reply to Mr. Dornan, 
     it is wrong to label these personnel records as ``secret'' 
     and imply that nondisclosure of personnel records is unique 
     to the military.
       Did the Navy fail to take appropriate action against 
     personnel involved in the 1992 incident in Sitka, Alaska? In 
     referring to my response to Mr. Dornan, you stated, ``I agree 
     with the DoD's response in that the Navy [sailors] were not 
     punished for their transgressions.'' You then declined 
     further comment because the case was in litigation. I wish to 
     clarify an apparent misunderstanding concerning my response 
     and inform you of recent developments in the Sitka cases.
       My reply to Mr. Dornan was not intended as an opinion that 
     the sailors were not properly punished for misconduct. While 
     I provided Mr. Dornan a summary of the incidents at Sitka 
     involving sailors from the USS DUNCAN, I expressly reserved 
     comment on whether the actions taken were justified. That was 
     because there was an ongoing civilian prosecution against two 
     DUNCAN sailors, one of whom was still in the Navy. That 
     prosecution concluded in January 1997, when the Alaska 
     Superior Court dismissed the indictments against both men.
       The Sitka cases involved two separate incidents. In the 
     first incident, two underage girls admitted lying to two 
     enlisted sailors that they were over 16, the age of consent 
     for sexual intercourse under both military law and Alaska 
     law. After an investigation, the Alaska state's attorney 
     declined to prosecute the sailors, as did the DUNCAN 
     commanding officer. There has been no further action 
     concerning this incident. The second incident, however, 
     eventually produced state indictments.
       As described in my letter to Mr. Dornan, the second 
     incident involved sexual contact with two underage girls by 
     two members of the DUNCAN crew. No intercourse occurred. A 
     commissioned officer, although an ensign (the most junior 
     commissioned officer grade), participated in these acts in 
     the presence of an enlisted sailor. Both men knew the girls 
     were underage. After the incident was reported and 
     investigated, the girls' parents did not want to press 
     charges, and the Alaska state's attorney declined to 
     prosecute. Under the circumstances, the DUNCAN commanding 
     officer determined that disciplining the enlisted sailor was 
     inappropriate because his participation had been encouraged 
     by a commissioned officer. The Navy took action against the 
     ensign that eventually resulted in his separation from the 
     Navy in lieu of trial by court-martial.
       Although the ensign's request for separation in lieu of 
     court-martial was approved, it resulted in an Under Other 
     Than Honorable Conditions Discharge. As discussed previously, 
     this character of discharge deprives the recipient of 
     entitlement to any veterans' benefits to which he would 
     otherwise be eligible and carries with it a significant 
     social stigma. For the ensign's transgressions, he lost his 
     job, any possibility of a military career, and present and 
     future entitlements to veterans benefits. He will also 
     endure the lifetime of disgrace associated with an Under 
     Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge. I am aware of 
     no civilian authority that can impose administrative 
     sanctions of such severity and permanence. I still decline 
     to comment on the appropriateness of these actions, as I 
     was not there and am not in a position to pass judgment on 
     the officers who made these decisions. However, any 
     perception that this ensign escaped punishment is not 
     accurate.
       You have concluded from Mr. Carollo's allegations and 
     ``recent military sexual misconduct scandals'' that there is 
     a need to reexamine the military justice system. The only 
     things proven by Mr. Carollo's articles are that sex crime 
     allegations make hard cases and the military justice system 
     adjudicates them one at a time. It is ironic that recent 
     ``scandals'' have been cited as evidence that the military 
     justice system is failing in comparison to the civilian 
     system. To the contrary, these events have proven the worth 
     of the military justice system. Please examine Mr. Carollo's 
     anecdotes and find out how many were cases that civilian 
     authorities declined to prosecute or had no interest in from 
     the start.
       In the military justice system, if a particular allegation 
     has resulted in a lesser charge, conviction of a lesser 
     offense, punishment that may seem lenient, or exoneration, 
     that is because someone made a hard decision. The same is 
     true if an allegation has produced a conviction as charged 
     and a severe sentence. In all cases, the decisions are made 
     by those who, under the law, have the power and duty to do 
     so, based on the applicable law and the evidence before them.
       I will close by assuring you, as I did Mr. Dornan, that the 
     military justice system is fair and efficient. I reaffirm my 
     rejection of any allegation that service members live and 
     work in a culture that officially condones sex crime or 
     shelters sex offenders. To anyone who is genuinely familiar 
     with the military and the military justice system, that 
     notion is nonsense.
       Thank you for your letter. I hope this reply has been 
     helpful in addressing your concerns.
           Sincerely,
     Judith A. Miller.
                                  ____


    Army Probe To Focus on Top Levels; Inquiry to Examine Leaders' 
                  Responsibility In Sexual Misconduct

             (By Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writer)

       The Army's civilian leader has ordered a wide-ranging 
     investigation into the chain of command's responsibility in 
     the sexual abuse scandal at Maryland's Aberdeen Proving 
     Ground and into the management of the headquarters for all 
     the Army's training centers.
       The inquiry is the first high-level look at the possible 
     role of senior officers in fostering the wrong atmosphere or 
     otherwise contributing to a scandal that has so far mostly 
     involved lower-level, noncommissioned personnel, such as 
     sergeants.
       In addition, the Pentagon acknowledged yesterday it does 
     not know how many female service members are victims of 
     sexual violence each year because it does not collect the 
     information, even though Congress passed a law ordering it to 
     do so in 1988.
       ``The department admits its deficiency,'' Defense 
     Department spokesman Kenneth Bacon said.
       Pentagon officials said Army Secretary Togo D. West Jr. 
     plans to announce today that he has asked the Army's 
     inspector general to find out what the commanders at the 
     Aberdeen Proving Ground ordnance training center knew about 
     the alleged incidents of sexual abuse, which include multiple 
     rapes. The probe also will look at whether the commanders 
     contributed to creating an atmosphere that permitted or 
     fostered such misconduct.
       West also has asked the inspector general to assess the 
     management of the Training and Doctrine Command, which has 
     control over Aberdeen and other Army training centers.
       ``It's an order to look top-to-bottom,'' a Pentagon 
     official said.
       West could not be reached for comment yesterday.
       Asked the day the Aberdeen allegations became public 
     whether the problem involved a few ``bad applies'' or was the 
     result of more systemic problems, Maj. Gen. Robert D. 
     Shadley, commander of Aberdeen, replied, ``I think it's a 
     combination of both.''
       Five drill instructors at Aberdeen are alleged to have had 
     improper, and illegal, relationships with female trainees 
     under their charge. Three of the five have been charged with 
     criminal offenses and the other two

[[Page H5972]]

     have received administrative punishment. Another 15 trainers 
     still are under investigation. The more egregious offenses 
     include assault, rape and threatening to kill or harm the 
     victims if they disclosed the attacks.
       Sexual misconduct, including assault by drill instructors, 
     is not a new problem in the Army, but has come to public 
     attention because of the gravity of the Aberdeen charges. The 
     Army made the Aberdeen cases public because it did not want 
     to be accused of a coverup.
       Most of the Army's other major training posts report 
     numerous cases of sexual misconduct by drill sergeants, who 
     have near-complete control over their young recruits and 
     trainees.
       Holly Hemphill, a Washington attorney and chairwoman of a 
     defense advisory panel on women in the armed services, known 
     as DACOWITS, said Defense Secretary William J. Perry asked 
     the group to visit Army training posts and conduct informal 
     interviews with female soldiers.
       Also yesterday, spokesman Bacon said the Defense Department 
     had not complied with a 1988 federal law that required the 
     Pentagon to create a uniform system for reporting all crimes, 
     including sexual crimes, in the military.
       Some of the services do not keep centralized statistics on 
     sexual crimes such as rape and indecent assault, according to 
     service officials interviewed recently.
       Hemphill said the advisory committee had tried many times 
     to get the services to give it information on sexual violence 
     against female soldiers but ``we kept getting the wrong 
     information.'' She said the services collect statistics on 
     spouse abuse, but not abuse of their female members. ``We 
     recommended in October that the department expand [its 
     database] to include violence against military women. * * * 
     It detracts from productivity and readiness, which is a huge 
     understatement.''
       Bacon said one problem was that Congress had not given the 
     department any money to create the new database. Congress, he 
     added yesterday, still had not come up with any new funds 
     ``but basically, after this hadn't been done for awhile, 
     somebody decided that it was time to do [it], and we're in 
     the process of doing that now.'' He said the directive was 
     issued Oct. 15.
       The information in the new Defense Incident Base Reporting 
     System also will be shared with the Justice Department. Other 
     federal agencies are under the same mandate to report crime 
     in their ranks to the Justice Department, but many have not 
     complied either, Pentagon officials noted yesterday. The Army 
     also has set up a military-civilian panel to review its 
     efforts to combat sexual harassment.
       House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) sent a letter Wednesday 
     telling Rep. Floyd Spence (R-S.C.), chairman of the House 
     National Security Committee, that Congress should monitor 
     closely all the military services' reviews of sexual 
     harassment prevention programs.
       Gingrich urged all House members to visit Aberdeen.
       A group of congresswomen, mostly Democrats, plans to visit 
     the base in mid-December.
                                  ____


            Defense Incident-Based Reporting System [DIBRS]

       Potential Question: What is DIBRS?
       The Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS) is a 
     data collection system and repository designed to meet the 
     Department's needs for oversight of law enforcement 
     activities. DIBRS collects and reports violations of the 
     Unified Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It will permit the 
     Department to respond to requests for statistical data on 
     criminal offenses and other high-interest issues including 
     suicide, sudden infant death syndrome, fraternization, and 
     sexual harassment. When finished, DIBRS will provide a 
     standard data system that tracks, criminal incidents from 
     initial allegation to final disposition through the law 
     enforcement, criminal investigation, command action, judicial 
     and corrections phases.
       Potential Question: What is DIBRS' relationship to the 
     Uniformed Crime Reporting Act of 1988, the Victims Rights and 
     Restitution Act of 1990, and the Brady Handgun Violence 
     Protection Act of 1994?
       Answer: Data requirements for the Uniformed Crime Reporting 
     Act and the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act are part of 
     DIBRS. These data will be extracted from the DIBRS data based 
     and transmitted to the FBI as required by statute. DIBRS also 
     permits us to monitor and measure compliance with the Victims 
     Rights and Restitution Act.
       The Uniformed Crime Reporting Act established the National 
     Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), the national 
     counterpart of DIBRS (see attachment). NIBRS collects and 
     annually reports statistics on crime in the United States. At 
     present only ten states and no federal agencies are fully 
     compliant with the provisions of NIBRS.
       Under the Victim Rights and Restitution Act, victims and 
     selected witnesses must be notified of their rights at 
     certain phases of a case from the time of initial contact by 
     law enforcement through the investigation phase, prosecution 
     phase, and if the case results in confinement, of change in 
     confinement status. The confinement authority must advise the 
     victim or witness of an inmate's status, to include length of 
     sentence, anticipated earliest release date, place of 
     confinement, the possibility of transfer, the possibility of 
     parole or clemency, release from confinement, escape, and 
     death.
       Under the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, the DoD 
     must report to the FBI:
       Persons who are under indictment for, or have been 
     convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment 
     for a term exceeding one year,
       Persons who are fugitives from justice;
       Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any 
     controlled substance;
       Persons who have been adjudicated as mental defectives or 
     who have been committed to a mental institution; and,
       Persons who have been separated from the Armed Forces with 
     a dishonorable discharge.
       Potential Question: Will DIBRS report all instances of 
     Sexual Harassment in the Services?
       Answer: DIBRS will report only those incidents of sexual 
     harassment that are reported to DoD law enforcement personnel 
     or adjudicated via the UCMJ. This would include incidents 
     investigated by equal opportunity advisors and subsequently 
     referred for action under the UCMJ. Sexual harassment 
     complaints that are reported to and investigated by equal 
     opportunity advisors and determined to be unfounded would not 
     necessarily be forwarded as DIBRS reportable incidents. This 
     distinction between DIBRS reportable incidents is necessary 
     to protect the identities of both alleged victims and alleged 
     offenders, as well as preserving the integrity of service 
     equal opportunity organizations as alternative means of 
     reporting, investigating, and resolving interpersonal 
     disputes.
       Potential Question: How much does DIBRS cost?
       Answer: Approximately $30 million. This figure includes 
     Army: $3.9 Million, excluding Judge Advocate; Navy: $11.5 
     Million; Marine Corps: $5.5 million; and Air Force: $5.1 
     million.
       These figures are still approximate, as we are attempting 
     to accelerate development of this much-needed system into 
     this Fiscal Year.
       Potential Question: When does the Department expect to have 
     DIBRS completed?
       Answer: DoD Manual 7730.47, which the USD(P&R) signed on 
     November 29, 1996, directed the Air Force to begin reporting 
     within 90 days of that date (March 1, 1997). The Navy and 
     Marines were next at the 270 day point (August 26). The Army 
     had 360 days to achieve compliance. The Defense Manpower Data 
     Center, the DoD repository for DIBRS, has begun working with 
     Air Force and Marine Corps data.
       Potential Question: Why did it take so long to develop 
     DIBRS?
       Answer: Work on DIBRS began in FY 1994. The Directive for 
     DIBRS was in coordination and revision for over one year. 
     That Directive and its accompanying manual are now signed and 
     implementation is underway. This year, we expect to be the 
     first Federal agency to join the ten states who currently are 
     reporting NIBRS data to the FBI.

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we will work out something that will force 
the Defense Department to adhere to what we suggested last year and 
what the gentlewoman is suggesting here. They should come up with 
figures which are reasonable. We will certainly try to work something 
out.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       Page 100, after line 15, insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds provided in this Act may be used 
     to transfer any of the Marine Corps helicopters and 
     associated support personnel located at El Toro Marine Corps 
     Base, California, and Tustin Marine Corps Base, California, 
     to Miramar Naval Air Station, California.

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill affecting the national 
security of the United States. I thank the Chair and the ranking member 
for all the work on this bill.
  I have an amendment which pertains to my home town of San Diego, an 
amendment which I believe will protect the citizens of my city by 
preventing the serious negative impacts to their health, safety, and 
environment associated with the arrival of a Marine Corps helicopter 
fleet.
  Mr. Chairman, the 1995 Base Realignment and Closure Commission, as we 
call BRACC, specifically eliminated the mention of Miramar Naval Air 
Station as a receiving base for the helicopters under discussion. That 
is to

[[Page H5973]]

say, this amendment has nothing to do with a BRACC decision. The BRAC 
Commission realigned Miramar Naval Air Station to Miramar Marine Corps 
Station, but said nothing about these helicopters. So we are not in 
this amendment interfering with any BRACC decision.

                              {time}  1430

  Miramar Air Station is situated in the middle of a populated area of 
San Diego, a populated area now scheduled to receive up to 163 of these 
helicopters, 163 huge 99-foot CH-53 Super Stallions, CH-46 Sea Knight 
transport helicopters.
  Now, I have heard from some folks that such amendments should not 
micromanage what the Defense Department is doing.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding to me.
  My colleague mentioned that this was not designed to interfere with 
any base closure recommendation, and I agree with his position. But let 
me remind the gentleman as well as the House that in the initial base 
closure go-round where this recommendation was made, the commission 
actually recommended that the very helicopters the gentleman is talking 
about leave Orange County and go to 29 Palms, CA, to a marine base 
where they would welcome these helicopters. Frankly, I cannot 
understand why they shifted that decision, except maybe some people 
want to live near the beach.
  In the meantime, if the gentleman would consider somewhere along the 
line amending this a bit to look at 29 Palms, I probably would not be 
offended.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would be happy with a 
friendly amendment from the gentleman. I agree with the gentleman there 
seem to be better places for these helicopters.
  I have been asked by several people why I am micromanaging a Defense 
Department decision. I do not call a decision which affects over 
600,000 residents, thousands of businesses, and 154 schools 
micromanaging. These helicopters will fly at 1,500 feet or below. The 
potential for loss of civilian life and property is great.
  Just recently, Mr. Chairman, in Okinawa, Japan, the Pentagon said to 
the Japanese, who had concerns about these helicopters in their area, 
they will build a floating heliport to separate the helicopters from 
jet fighters, saying it would be extremely difficult to control the 
traffic of the slower choppers with fixed wing aircraft. It was a 
safety concern.
  If the Pentagon is willing to spend money in Japan to significantly 
reduce the burdens and threat to the people in Okinawa, why will they 
not do the same thing for my constituents in San Diego? We are being 
treated differently, and I do not know for what reason.
  These helicopters will discharge 1,600 tons of air pollutants per 
year. That significantly affects our quality of life but, even more 
importantly, may bring the city of San Diego into a worse 
classification in terms of our air quality and, therefore, bring 
restrictions which will slow our economic growth. We should not allow 
such environmental impacts to affect our economic growth.
  Most of the residents near this Miramar Naval Air Station oppose the 
relocation of helicopters. They believe the Navy misrepresented the 
facts in their environmental impact statement. One resident said to me, 
``What is going on here? These marine helicopters are noisy, dangerous, 
polluting weapons of war. They have no business flying over densely 
populated areas. They are a disaster waiting to happen. The Pentagon's 
thinking is inexplicable.''
  Now, Miramar Naval Air Station is not directly in my own district, 
but my constituents will be affected by the pollution, by the potential 
slowing of economic growth because of that pollution and, equally 
important, I have in my district a naval helicopter station now. We 
understand that to somehow meet the concerns of the folks who live 
around the Miramar Naval Air Station, they might want to conduct some 
of their flight training in my district.
  So bringing these helicopters in affects the noise levels of tens of 
thousands of people, it affects the quality of life, it affects our 
environment, it affects the safety. This is not a decision that ought 
to be ratified by this Congress, and my amendment would prevent any 
funds from being used to transfer those helicopters.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I do not disagree with anything my colleague from California has 
said. In the very first BRACC, before this was even a concern, this 
Member sought to try and put fixed-wing aircraft with fixed-wing 
aircraft at Miramar. It is much more efficient. We lost that fight.
  During the second BRACC, when they decided to close El Toro and 
Hawaii and some other bases and move helicopters, I also opposed 
helicopters coming to Miramar for some of the same reasons my colleague 
from California mentioned.
  We went through the study of noise, we went through environmental, we 
went through the Secretary of the Navy. They said no. We went to 
General Krulak. The Marine Corps said the helicopters are coming. We 
went to the Secretary of the Navy. They said the helicopters were 
coming.
  My colleague and I even went to the White House to try to get support 
from then Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and after an extensive study, 
the Chief of Staff said the helicopters are coming. The President said 
the helicopters are coming.
  It is my responsibility to my constituents in whose area these 
helicopters are coming to be truthful and to point out to them when 
there is, A, merit, which I think there is merit in the gentleman's 
amendment. But the chance of the amendment getting through is very, 
very small. It is like telling an MIA family that there are MIA's 
alive. We get their hopes up and then when it does not happen, it goes 
down. We have been through this year after year after year.
  I would say, Mr. Chairman, I have gone back and asked General Krulak, 
I have asked Jay Johnson in the Navy, I have asked the Secretary of 
Defense, and all the way up to the President, and they said that, no, 
this does interfere with the BRACC decision and that it will not 
happen.
  So instead of getting my constituents all in hopes that they are not 
coming, I would like to work with my colleague to make sure, first of 
all, the I-15 corridor that goes up and down, which has Scripts' Ranch 
and Rancho Bernardo, and a lot of the affected area. The FAA has been 
very forthcoming, and the administration has helped us with this, which 
I am very thankful for, but if it is IFR, under instrument flight 
rules, we have limited the number of flights that go up and down the I-
15 corridor. If it goes to the east, over a certain departure, we have 
actually altered the departure route for that so it does not overfly 
much of the population.
  I cannot tell the gentleman the difficulty it took or takes to change 
airways, because it affects everything.
  The third thing we have done is change the altitudes. They were going 
to go out a thousand feet. I would also like to work with the chairman. 
I live out here at the marina, and those helicopters are coming by 
every morning and every night at 0-dark-hundred in the morning from the 
White House, and I want them stopped because they are noisy. And those 
things are about 200 feet over the top of my boat, and it is going to 
stop.
  But I also want to point out that we have also lost, Mr. Chairman, 
six marines in car accidents that have been forced to travel up and 
down the corridor. Military construction for the base. And I think the 
helicopters are coming, I would say to my colleague, and we need to do 
everything that we can to make sure that, A, the military is welcome; 
that, B, we do everything we can to appease our citizens in South Bay 
and my district as well, and to work together on this issue.
  But I do not think the amendment will pass and I think the actual 
potential of it ever making it through is zero. So for that reason I 
would oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.

[[Page H5974]]

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's kind words. 
The gentleman has been fighting this for longer than I, and we have 
fought together. I would just suggest to the gentleman that with his 
support we could get it through.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that I 
will support the amendment, but I do not think it will pass. The reason 
I am hesitant in doing that is because if it gets my constituents' 
hopes up, I think they will get dashed.
  I will support the gentleman's amendment, but I do not think it will 
pass.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would hope with the gentleman's support, 
he can get his side, I will get my side, and we will get it passed.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and to 
reluctantly oppose my friend, but very forcefully so.
  The claim of the maker of the amendment is that this is not a BRACC 
issue. It really is a BRACC issue. It was in the BRACC in 1993 to make 
the transfer, to close El Toro and to transfer the helicopters. This 
was a fixed wing, and the noise has always been at Miramar. The 
helicopters replaced fixed wing but the noise will still be there. It 
will be a different noise, and I understand that, but that is not the 
real issue.
  In 1988 we established the BRACC process specifically to prevent the 
President and the Congress from meddling in the closing of bases and 
from politicizing it. We have very, very carefully adhered to that 
purpose. We do not want to open up the process to where we can make 
changes in the BRACC.
  It is my subcommittee that finances the closing of bases. We just 
completed voting on my bill that funds the final stage of closing El 
Toro and transferring the helicopters to Miramar and constructing the 
facilities to accommodate the transfer. $375 million has been 
appropriated to close the base and to transfer the helicopters. All but 
$48 million of it is being spent and has been appropriated.
  The $48 million final part is in this year's military construction 
bill. We voted on that just 3 weeks ago here on the floor of the House. 
All but 14 Members of the House voted for it, including the maker of 
this amendment, which had $48 million to complete the transfer of the 
helicopters to Miramar. The gentleman has already voted on it and voted 
in favor of it.
  Aside from that, let me read carefully the amendment. ``None of the 
funds provided in this act,'' in this bill before us today. There are 
no funds in this bill today to transfer the helicopters. So the 
amendment really has nothing to do with this bill. It will not 
eliminate, add to, or change the allocation of this bill whatsoever.
  So I would suggest that the gentleman withdraw the amendment, because 
it has absolutely no bearing upon this bill and, to be very honest with 
my colleagues, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] 
outlined, it has gone through review after review after review, all the 
way to the President, and in every case the answer came back exactly 
the same, no change. No change in the BRACC.
  The last thing this Congress ought to do today is open up the chance 
of changing BRACC, because that is what we established BRACC to do. I 
had probably half a dozen to a dozen requests to alter the BRACC 
process in my bill 3 weeks ago. I rejected every one of them. Because 
the moment we open that door, that is the moment that the whole BRACC 
process will unravel. And the last thing I want to do is to reject my 
colleagues in Florida and here and there throughout the country of 
making a change in BRACC, and then find one right next door to my 
district and say, well, I tend to agree that we should change that one. 
Absolutely not.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman partially, 
except that I intentionally put in the language that would allow this 
to happen. The only problem is that every source we have gone to has 
said no, it will not happen.
  The gentleman is correct, there is no money to make it happen. And we 
tried every effort, whether it was 29 Palms or whether it was March or 
what, we thought it was a better avenue. I still do. The language is in 
there that would allow it, but none of the sources that would allow us 
to do that at this time will allow it to happen.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's comments. I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
amendment, primarily from the standpoint of not the parochial issue but 
the fact that we do not want to meddle in the BRACC process. That would 
be a precedent that I think would be unacceptable.
  And I strongly urge my colleagues, if this comes to a vote, to vote 
against it. I would hope that the gentleman would withdraw the 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
do not want to prolong this debate beyond a couple more minutes. I want 
to point out to my good friend from California, Mr. Packard, here is a 
copy of the BRACC report. It specifically says, ``and change a previous 
recommendation that says that these helicopters may be moved to other 
air stations consistent with operational requirements.''
  That is, the BRACC report opens the door to several other 
alternatives. Those alternatives do exist. We have heard the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cunningham] saying that was his change. My other 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has suggested 
other alternatives, and other communities who are negatively affected 
by base closures want these helicopters. It is not inconsistent with 
BRACC.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding to me.
  The point the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] brought out, 
though, was that the very decision of transferring the helicopters, not 
any other part of the decision of transferring the helicopters to 
Miramar, was reviewed time and time again by every agency, all the way 
up to the President, and they all came back with the same decision: The 
helicopters should go to Miramar.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. I understand that. But this authority has not yet passed 
on it. Many of those decisions were based on an environmental impact 
statement, which is being challenged in court right now as being, at 
the least, dishonest and, at the worst, deliberately misrepresenting 
the facts in terms of the environmental impacts. So other authorities 
have ruled. I would like this Congress to rule.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Filner].
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Shays

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shays:
       Page 100, after line 15, insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . The total amount obligated from new budget 
     authority provided in this Act may not exceed 
     $244,415,000,000.

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, this is a freeze amendment. This is an 
amendment that says we are going to spend no more next year than we 
spent this year on defense. It is a recognition on the part of this 
Congress that we are slowing the growth of entitlements, we are truly 
cutting parts of domestic spending, and we are saying that the defense 
budget, which constitutes basically half of what we vote out and 
appropriate, should be under the same basic scrutiny.

[[Page H5975]]

  It is a recognition on the part of this Congress that we need to look 
at the fact that the cold war has ended and we are waging a different 
type of warfare. In many cases, it is an economic warfare. In many 
cases, it is a warfare against terrorism. This amendment is a 
recognition that we need to look at all our weapon systems and 
determine that some need to go forward and some need to be discontinued 
in terms of research and development but not deployment. It is a 
recognition that this Republican Congress will realize that a freeze is 
not a cut, as we have said when we have argued against domestic 
spending. It is a freeze. It is a recognition that we need to look at 
our defense budget with the same kind of scrutiny and desire that we 
have looked at other parts of the budget. It is a recognition that, if 
we are going to get our country's financial house in order, we cannot 
allow the defense budget to go up.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank], a cosponsor of this amendment. We have a number of cosponsors, 
but he is the primary partner.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays] for yielding.
  Let me anticipate one argument. This is not an across-the-board cut. 
This would, if it passed, have the Subcommittee on Appropriations, in 
conference, have the authority to allocate where to reduce what they 
ask for. And if they have trouble fingering places, I will suggest 
some: Funds for Bosnia; the funds for the expansion of NATO beyond our 
fair share. Maybe they are even talking about not sending 100 officers 
over here to help us do our job.
  The point is that we are talking about the largest single operational 
budget in the Federal Government, and we are saying, at a time of great 
austerity, at a time when we are admittedly cutting back on programs 
that are of great value in a number of areas, we would ask the Defense 
Department to participate.
  A number of Members here have said that they think we are 
overextended. We have passed legislation in this House that has said to 
the administration, cut back, you are overextended here, you do not 
belong over there.
  They will continue to ignore those with absolute impunity until this 
House does the one thing it can do to restrain excessive 
interventionism, and that is reduce the funding. We know that from our 
history. What this bill then says is to Members who think we are 
excessively engaged here or there, we will trust the appropriations 
subcommittee. They will tell us with false modesty that this will be a 
job much too hard for them. But I have more confidence in their 
ingenuity than that.
  Given the mandate from this House to make this relatively small cut 
to bring it back to a freeze, they would have the option of restraining 
the administration from entering into or continuing efforts which we do 
not think they should be in. They could crack down on waste. We could 
get serious about telling our allies in Europe that it is their turn to 
pick up some of the tab.
  Indeed, if we forced the Europeans to do just a little bit of what 
they ought to be doing, we could easily afford this cut. This at this 
point, because we are in a fire wall situation, would not be available 
for domestic spending. I wish it would. In later years, it might be.
  What we are talking about is another $3-plus billion of deficit 
reduction. I must say, as I look at how that deal is working out, which 
I do not happen to be a fan of, some of my colleagues who are voting 
for it may need a little extra deficit reduction, because that deal is 
going to be a deficit increase for a while.
  So those of my colleagues who are planning to vote for the deal and 
claim credit for getting the deficit down might want to borrow our 
$3\1/2\ billion, because they are going to need it, as I do the 
arithmetic, in the next year.
  But, in any case, it would be a very grave error to continue spending 
at the level that the committee asked for, increasing spending by a 
couple percentage points, continuing to fund excessive intervention, 
continuing to fund the subsidy of our Western European allies. All we 
do in this amendment is say to the Appropriations Subcommittee we have 
confidence that you, if you ask for a fair shake for America in the 
world, can make this small saving at a time when we are in fact putting 
the crunch to program after program after program.
  I thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] for his 
leadership, and I yield back to him.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, we urge adoption of this 
freeze amendment to the defense budget.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  I reluctantly oppose my good friend, the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays], because he is such a gentleman and is always so 
accommodating when there are legislative matters before the House. But 
I have to respond to some of the comments he made.
  He said we cannot allow defense spending to continue to go up. This, 
Mr. Chairman, is the 13th year in a row that defense investment has 
gone down. In the last 10 years, the active duty forces have declined 
by 714,000 uniform personnel. The civilian work force has declined 
318,000 personnel. The Guard and Reserve have been reduced by 267,000 
uniform personnel.
  In constant fiscal year 1998 dollars, the defense budget has declined 
by $120 billion in the last 10 years. In constant fiscal year 1998 
dollars, the procurement budget has declined by $65.7 billion, or 70 
percent, in the last 10 years. The budget request for procurement is 
the lowest since before the Korean war. So this defense budget has not 
been continuously going up. It has been continuously going down. And we 
are trying to level it off. This amendment would cut $4 billion out of 
this bill.
  The number in this bill is consistent with the defense numbers agreed 
to in the budget agreement. It is consistent with the House-passed 
budget resolution. It is consistent with the House-passed defense and 
intelligence authorization bills. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would 
undermine all of those agreements that have been agreed to by the 
House.
  Besides, this amendment would leave it to the administration or the 
Pentagon to determine where the cuts would be. I do not think the 
Members of the Congress want to allow that to happen. We are the ones 
that are supposed to make these kinds of decisions.
  The gentleman has suggested that the defense bill should have the 
same scrutiny as all other budgets. Let me point out, most of the other 
budgets have gone up. The defense budget has gone down, as I just said. 
But if Members will read the report published by this subcommittee, 
they will learn that we have scrutinized every one of these budgets. We 
have killed off some of the programs. We have reduced some of the 
programs. And we have accelerated some of the programs, as the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has suggested. So we have done 
that.
  This is a good bill. To cut $4 billion out of this bill, let me tell 
my colleagues what it would take. This would take it down to the 
President's budget number, basically. We added $60 million above the 
President's budget for housing allowances for members of the military. 
We added medical research and operations increases above the budget 
request for $370 million, including $125 million for breast cancer 
research that we talked about so much today. We provided $79 million, a 
25-percent increase over last year's level, for the DOD programs 
dealing with Gulf war illness. We provided $99 million above the budget 
for combat training programs; $622 million above the budget for Navy 
and Air Force shortfalls in flying hours and spare parts related to 
flying hours, training. We provided $925 million above the budget for 
real property maintenance, including barracks repair and renovation.
  We added $184 million above the budget for the Guard and Reserve 
forces operation and maintenance programs; $473 million above the 
budget request for depot maintenance. We provided $713 million, $60 
million over the President's budget, or nearly 10 percent above the 
budget request, for DOD counterdrug and drug interdiction programs.
  This list goes on and on, Mr. Chairman. Which of those programs do my 
colleagues want to cut? If the Shays-Frank amendment is agreed to, 
those will all have to be cut and a whole lot more. I just do not think 
the Members of this House want to do that.

[[Page H5976]]

  As we prepared to go to markup, we had requests for adds above the 
President's budget of $20 billion. By the time we found the 
duplications and where several requests included the same request, we 
got it down to about $12 billion above the budget request. The 
subcommittee worked through this problem, and we bring a bill today 
that is above the President's budget request but it is in line with our 
budget resolution, the authorization bills.
  We ought to defeat this amendment out of hand because it would make 
such a slash, a drastic meat ax cut in the defense funding for the next 
fiscal year. Oppose this amendment.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frank-Shays amendment. This 
would make this year's Pentagon spending equal to that of last year's. 
This year we are accomplishing a very historic task, we are bringing 
the Federal budget into balance in the next 5 years. But what that 
means is that we have to now begin to set some sensible budget 
priorities.
  I do not think it is sensible to continue cold war spending 
priorities. I think we have heard a lot of figures, but maybe I could 
simplify this by talking about the fact that there are in fact two 
budgets. One is a discretionary budget. The other is entitlements. I 
have a picture here of the discretionary budget so that the American 
people will understand what we are talking about because pictures 
really are probably easier than all these figures.
  What it shows in this picture is that the discretionary budget of 
this historic agreement, 52 percent goes to the Pentagon and 48 percent 
of discretionary spending goes to everything else. Well, what does 
everything else include? Agricultural, commerce, community development, 
education, energy Federal retirement, health, international, justice, 
natural resources, science, transportation, and veterans. All those 
things are funded out of the 48 percent that is left over.
  So I would say that these are misplaced priorities. It is time to 
change the focus of the priorities to reflect on the fact that national 
security means more than outdated cold war systems, it means providing 
our children with a quality education.
  How wonderful it would be if national security would include access 
to health care for our families and for everyone a safer place to live 
and to learn. Now recent reports show that our children, the children 
of America, are at more risk than their contemporaries in any other 
industrialized nation in the world.
  We are first, however, in military technologies in preparedness, in 
expenditures. But we are 18th in infant mortality, 17th in low birth 
weight babies, and we are the last in protecting our children against 
gun violence. We spend more on the military than do the next eight 
countries combined.
  There are several weapons systems in this appropriations bill that 
were initiated during the cold war for the purpose of fighting the 
Soviet Union. If we were to cancel these, we would save over $500 
billion.
  I would like to quote from an admiral of the U.S. Navy, Adm. Eugene 
Carroll, retired, who says, ``For 45 years of the Cold War, we were in 
an arms race with the Soviet Union. Now it appears we are in an arms 
race with ourselves.''

                              {time}  1500

  If we can go home and brag about balancing the budget when all the 
pain comes from non-Pentagon spending, I think our constituents have 
something to ask us about. I urge my colleagues, support this sensible 
amendment. Begin to set our priorities straight.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to hear those figures offered by the 
gentlewoman that just preceded me. I think she might be interested in 
looking at a chart that I have been carrying around for some time. We 
all remember the days of Camelot, the days of Jack Kennedy when all was 
good and peaceful and it never rained except at night. In those days, 
in the peak of the cold war, the United States spent half, not of the 
discretionary budget but of its entire budget on the defense of this 
Nation, because Jack Kennedy thought it was important to protect the 
American people against the onslaught of the Communist menace. Half of 
everything we spent is depicted in this lower yellow portion of the 
discretionary budget. I might add, the nondefense discretionary was 
roughly a third of that remaining.
  In today's chart, which I do not have in front of us, the picture has 
entirely changed. Defense has dropped from half of the entire budget to 
roughly one-sixth of the entire budget. Yet the portion of nondefense 
discretionary stayed effectively the same. It has grown with the 
budget. The budget has grown from $106 billion to $1.6 trillion today 
and nondefense discretionary is roughly the same. Entitlements have 
grown from what was a quarter to about 55, 56 percent of what we spend 
today, and interest on the debt has grown from a mere 6 percent of the 
budget back in Jack Kennedy's day to as much as we spend on the defense 
of this Nation, within $2 billion to $5 billion. We spend as much on 
interest to service the debt that we have accumulated in the last 25 
years as we spend on the defense of this Nation. The fact is the one 
big declining portion of the budget since Jack Kennedy's day has been 
defense. Defense has shrunk and everything else has grown 
astronomically. Since 1985 procurement for new weapons systems has 
declined between 75 and 80 percent.
  This administration has troops deployed to more corners of the world 
than perhaps any other preceding President, in peacetime. He did not 
want to pay for them because over the last 2 or 3 budgets he actually 
asked for between 7 to $12 billion in cuts in the defense budget. We 
did not do it. We froze the defense budget in real dollars, but the 
fact was when we count inflation, the budget shrank. Each and every 
year after inflation, the budget for the Defense Department shrank. In 
fact it has shrunk consistently since 1985.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the 
chairman, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] for doing an 
outstanding job in putting together a bill that makes up for some of 
the shortfalls proposed by this administration. This bill pays for the 
Reserve forces pay accounts, makes up for the shortfalls in the Defense 
Health Program, pays for the Army's successful breast cancer research 
effort, pays and fully funds the Air Force and Navy flying hour and 
spare parts shortfalls, pays for the real property maintenance backlogs 
where we have young troops, young sailors, young marines, young airmen 
living in barracks that were built in World War II and are in 
deplorable condition. This bill pays for drug interdiction program, 
Guard and Reserve equipment, and missile defense program shortfalls.
  If we agree to this amendment, the fact is that we would go from what 
used to be one-half of the full budget, now is one-sixth of the budget, 
to a significantly smaller portion of the budget and in fact we would 
leave our troops underfunded and our country underdefended. I think 
that is an appalling lapse and I just do not think we can do it any 
more. We have shrunk enough.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the 
gentleman's remarks. The height of the Reagan buildup ended in 1985. We 
have cut this budget in defense every single year. We have cut it by 
over $100 billion. I believe that we are now down at a point if we cut 
it any further, we are going to cause real problems in the military 
which has been deployed more than any military during the cold war. 
These numbers are absolutely accurate and defense spending has been cut 
too far.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's 
comments. The fact is that between uniformed military and defense-
related industry personnel, we have shrunk the whole defense 
establishment of this country by over 1 million people. If any portion 
of this budget has given since 1962, the defense portion of the budget 
has paid more than its share. I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page H5977]]

  (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
bipartisan Shays-Klug-Ramstad-Frank-Hinchey-Luther amendment to freeze 
fiscal year 1998 defense spending at fiscal year 1997 levels.
  As we continue our efforts to balance the budget and reduce the 
Federal debt, each and every Government program, including defense, 
must be scrutinized for potential savings.
  By freezing the defense budget we force the Pentagon to cut wasteful 
and duplicative programs and to live within their means, like every 
American family and business must do every day.
  This freeze is a modest reduction. In other words, this reduces the 
defense budget by only 1.7 percent or $4.3 billion.
  While I fully understand and strongly support the need for a strong 
national defense, I believe freezing defense appropriations at last 
year's level will produce further Pentagon cost savings reforms, 
without endangering our national security.
  Above all, it will show the American people that Congress treats all 
parts of the Federal budget fairly when it comes to cutting programs, 
balancing the budget and reducing the deficit.
  I strongly urge you to support this amendment.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana who 
just spoke. He managed to point out to the membership that since John 
Kennedy became President, we created the Medicare Program.
  It is true in 1962 defense was a much higher percentage of the total 
spending. We had no Medicare Program. But that was not John Kennedy's 
fault. He wanted one. It is true that we had no environmental spending. 
So the argument from 1962 in terms of percentages is built on the fact 
that in 1962 we had no environmental program, we had no Medicare 
Program, we had no Medicaid Program, and it is true that they have now 
reduced the total percentage.
  But it also has nothing to do with a rational decision about how much 
to spend. The point of defense spending is to be far stronger than your 
enemies. One thing has changed even more since 1985 than the defense 
number and that is the nature of our enemy in the world. No one I know 
of thought at the time that the Soviet Union and its allies in the 
Warsaw Pact were not the major focus of our defense spending. There 
were other enemies, there was North Korea, there was Iran, but the 
major focus of our defense in every way, shape and form in terms of 
nuclear and conventional was the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. That 
has disappeared.
  There is no area of government where the objective situation has 
changed so greatly in our favor. Yes, we do have a potential problem 
with China. We have Iran and Iraq and Libya. We had those then. So, of 
course, we have cut spending some since 1985. If what had happened to 
the Soviet Union between 1985 and now had happened to cancer, we would 
not have a National Cancer Institute. There has been a total collapse, 
a disappearance of the major enemy.
  The question is, do we need to spend at the current level to be 
secure against Iraq and Libya, et cetera? The answer seems to me to be 
clearly no. Of course, we should be the strongest Nation in the world. 
It is much cheaper to be. The gentleman from Florida, the chairman of 
the committee, said this is what the budget agreement called for, this 
is what the authorization called for. The gentleman knows that those 
are ceilings, not floors. The budget resolution, the authorization, 
they set ceilings. We are told at the time, this is the ceiling, this 
is the maximum. The notion that we always must appropriate up to every 
penny of the authorizing and budget resolutions is clearly one this 
House rejects.
  The gentleman also inaccurately stated that this amendment would give 
the President the authority to make the changes. Nothing could be 
clearer. If this amendment were to pass, the bill would go to 
conference and the conferees would have entire authority to change the 
spending priorities.
  The gentleman says, well, we would have to cut breast cancer, we 
would have to cut this. No. How about enforcing this House's vote that 
said we should be withdrawing from Bosnia? This bill funds, and let us 
be clear about this, this bill funds a full 12 months in Bosnia despite 
the fact that this House voted that the Bosnia enterprise should end 
June 30. This bill is inconsistent because it gives the administration 
the money to keep the troops in Bosnia in July and August and September 
over the vote of the House.
  This bill continues the practice of saying to France and Germany and 
England and Norway and Italy and Belgium, ``You are objects of our 
charity.'' The worst example of cultural lag in the history of the 
world is that the United States taxpayers through this bill will be 
continuing to subsidize our NATO allies. We have voted several times to 
say they do not do enough. Their percentage of their spending of their 
GDP on defense far lags ours.
  Yes, defending Western Europe is in our interest, but let me make a 
statement that I hope is accepted. While defending Western Europe is in 
our interest, it is at least as much in the interest of the Western 
Europeans. Let me make it a 50-50 proposition. It is at least as 
important to Belgium and France and Italy that we defend Belgium and 
France and Italy as it is to the United States. But we would not know 
that from looking at the figures or from looking at the appropriations, 
because while people in those countries have health care, people in 
those countries have much better unemployment compensation, their 
American equivalents may find themselves without health care, without 
unemployment compensation, without other things that we could use 
because we are subsidizing their defense, because we spend in many 
cases twice as much of our gross domestic product on defending them.
  So I say to the Committee on Appropriations, work a little at it. 
Tell the administration that we are serious about withdrawing from 
Bosnia on June 30. We would save a billion or two there. They can do it 
if they put their minds to it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I did want to mention that it has been my privilege as 
a member of this subcommittee to sit for endless hours in the hearings 
of the appropriations subcommittee that handles our national security, 
and I rise simply to express my deep appreciation to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young] and to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] 
for the phenomenal job that the two together have done in developing a 
highly bipartisan product that reflects the broad needs of our country.
  To say the least, even though it involves $4 billion or so, an 
across-the-board cut, the very authors of this amendment know, is the 
worst way to govern. You do not take a machete and go across the board. 
You end up in that process by hurting the very people you say you 
support, the young men and women who live in conditions that are 
considerably less than we would have them live in, the circumstances 
that impact the quality of life in terms of housing on the bases that 
are involved. Across-the-board cuts are the wrong way. Indeed, defense 
has paid the price over a number of years of shrinking budgets. This 
indeed is a very, very well-developed, well-balanced bipartisan, almost 
nonpartisan measure. I commend the committee for its work.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment presented by the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. We have the highest standard of 
living in the world and have had for generations now not only because 
we have wonderful people in this country working hard every day but 
because of our military and because of the strength of our Defense 
Department. To propose a cut in spending on our military at this time 
would be a huge mistake. This money does not just provide the necessary 
weapons we need to maintain our freedom and liberty around the world 
but it provides money for training, very important training that must 
go on regardless of whether we are in

[[Page H5978]]

peacetime or war. It also provides for the maintenance necessary to 
keep our planes running and keep the tanks running, keep the trucks 
going, keep all of those things ready in the event we do have a 
problem. All of this affects readiness.
  The reason that we are at peace right now is because the strength of 
the military through these processes keeps us at a level where no one 
wants to mess with us and threaten our quality of life. Quality of life 
is what I started out talking about a moment ago. In this country 
regardless of our income bracket, whether we are at the top or bottom, 
the biggest concern we generally have these days is whether or not we 
are going to be able to watch the video of our choice this weekend or 
what clothes we are going to be wearing this Saturday night or whether 
or not we are going to be able to get a cell phone to use in our car. 
All of those things are a great, great accomplishment and a great 
testament to our quality of life in this country because our military 
allows us to maintain that standard of living. We are also talking 
about health care for our military troops and for retirees. There are 
situations in this country right now where retirees cannot get in to 
see a doctor when necessary because of the funding cuts over the years.

                              {time}  1515

  This bill tries to address all of these needs.
  It is a crime in this country when a military retiree has to wait 5 
weeks to see a doctor. We are talking about people who saved the world 
in situations like World War II and saved the country. How can we not 
provide them the funds necessary to see a doctor?
  This also includes money for pay raises, very important. We have 
still too many people serving in the military that are on food stamps, 
and it is a sad commentary on having that occur in this country in this 
day and age when our quality of life is so high in the civilian sector.
  The other thing that this affects greatly for those who support 
peacekeeping missions, and I do not, it threatens the ability for our 
military to serve in peacekeeping missions around the country and for 
situations like Haiti. Haiti has turned out to be a fiasco. Whether we 
had a peacekeeping mission there or not, the government is about to 
fall apart, and we have wasted probably $3 billion in Haiti.
  Mr. Chairman, those who support peacekeeping on the other side ought 
to be able to stand up and say, ``Well, we can't be gutting the 
military at this time because we need to pay for these peacekeeping 
missions as well.''
  So all of these things make a big difference. To stand up here and 
say that the military ought to be the first place we ought to look to 
make cuts are very misguided. Let us enjoy our peacetime. Let us 
continue to enjoy it providing the military the funds that they need to 
do the job right not only for this generation, but for generations to 
come.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to see other Members here to join this 
debate. We are talking about the largest single appropriation. It seems 
to me appropriate that we ought to fully air it.
  First of all, I was disappointed my friend from California had to 
rush off the floor and could not yield to me because he, I do not 
think, and he is back, good; he did not perhaps read the amendment when 
he said it is an across-the-board cut. It simply is not. An across-the-
board cut, as we all know, means we cut every item by the same 
percentage. This amendment does not do that, and I am flattered that he 
apparently thinks the real amendment would be hard to criticize so he 
criticized a nonexisting amendment. And I would join him in opposing 
that nonexisting across-the-board amendment, if offered.
  This amendment clearly says the total amount obligated cannot exceed 
X, and if it passes without question it is then within the province of 
the appropriations subcommittee in conference to comply with it. It 
would be entirely their choice. The President would have nothing to 
say. He would get a bill that would have to be this total, but what the 
components were would be entirely up to them. And so they would not 
have to cut these other things.
  They could, as I have said before, enforce this House's view about 
Bosnia, and let us be clear we had a large majority that said we want 
to pull out of Bosnia by June 30. Why then is the Committee on 
Appropriations fully funding them to stay there for 12 months?
  We have had the House say that we are picking up a disproportionate 
share in Europe. My friend from Massachusetts who yielded to me noted 
we ought to compare what the average worker gets in health benefits and 
unemployment compensation and tuition for higher education. In every 
case they get a better deal than the American because the American gets 
to pay for Germany's defense and Belgium's defense and France's defense 
because the percentage that we pay far exceeds theirs, and this 
appropriations bill funds a continuation of that inequitable pattern.
  That is what we are telling the Committee on Appropriations: Instead 
of all this talk about burden sharing you are the ones who can enforce 
it because you are the ones who can say to our European allies, ``You 
will have to pay some more on your own.''
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield now to a man who 
has been genuine in his consistent interest in reducing the deficit, 
the author of the amendment, the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, could I just inquire how much time the 
gentleman is yielding to me?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman had 5 minutes, and he has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] 
has been totally consistent for years on the fact that we need to get 
our Defense budget in line with the other parts of our budget, and that 
is why I am more than happy to participate in this bipartisan amendment 
to have this Congress, this Republican Congress, realize that we have 
waste, fraud, and abuse, believe it or not, in Defense budget as much 
as we have it in domestic programs.
  We have had hundreds of hearings on the waste and the fraud and the 
abuse and mismanagement that we see in domestic programs. We have 
hardly had any hearings on the waste and fraud and abuse that exists in 
the Defense budget. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and I 
and the sponsors of this amendment want a strong national defense. We 
want in fact a stronger national defense than we have now. We do not 
feel though we can commit to so many programs, spread ourself so thinly 
and then come back to Congress and say we have to keep spending more.
  This is truly a freeze amendment. We are going to be spending about 
$244.4 billion this year, and we are saying that we should spend about 
that amount next year. We are not cutting, we are not increasing; we 
are freezing. It is very disingenuous for people, particularly my own 
side of the aisle, to start talking about the fact that adjusting for 
inflation in this amendment is actually a cut and not a freeze. Well, 
if we say that, then let us be consistent with all the other programs 
that we say we are not cutting.
  Mr. Chairman, I am asking that we treat the Defense budget like we 
would treat any other budget.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, to say 
the gentleman made a very good point. When we find fraud or waste in 
other programs, our impulse is to cut those programs to penalize them. 
Where we have found in the intelligence budget, which is part of this 
appropriation; remember, this includes the intelligence budget, the 
people who have the disappearing $4 billion that they got to keep. Our 
approach is when we find a waste in the national security area to give 
them more money to make up for what they wasted. The incentive for 
efficiency in this area is zero, the incentive to cut back in 
overextended interventions is zero, and the incentive this budget gives 
the administration to make our allies, our wealthy allies, pay a fairer 
share is also zero. That is what the freeze would accomplish.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words,

[[Page H5979]]

and I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I just wanted to say 
before I will yield, and I am going to yield to my distinguished 
chairman; but before I yield, I just want to say that as my colleagues 
know, we have always had in this House a bipartisan coalition of 
Democrats and Republicans who have supported national defense and 
national security throughout the years.
  One of the reasons we won the cold war: Because Congress steadfastly 
stood behind the administration, whether it is Democrat or Republican, 
and we continued to fund an adequate program for national security. We 
have cut that budget by $100 billion since 1985. I think that is too 
deep. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, all the Joint Chiefs, wrote a 
letter to Perry saying we are $60 billion short. We need to get up to a 
level of $60 billion a year in procurement. We are well below that 
still.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], who has 
done a great job, he and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], 
in bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that it is 
obvious to me that the sponsors of this amendment, as well meaning as 
they are, have not read our report because in this report we explain 
how we cut over 200 programs from this bill, which is, by the way, the 
13th appropriations bill for national defense, 13th one in a row that 
is less than the year before in actual purchasing ability. We cut over 
200 programs. They are described in this report, and we targeted the 
Pentagon bureaucracy and their overhead. The QDR recommended certain 
reductions for next year; we took them for this year, $325 million 
worth. Other headquarters reductions, we took $149 million; civilian 
personnel overbudgeting, we took $245 million; for consultants and 
advisory services, we took $210 million; for defense dual use and 
commercialization programs, we took $188 million. We stopped certain 
programs. JASSM; $140 million, we took out of the program. In 
appropriating budgeting and working capital funds, we took out $111 
million; automated data processing programs, excess growth in the 
programs, we took out $110 million; excess defense supply inventory, we 
took out $100 million, the Joint Aerostat Program, we could not find 
anybody that supported it so we terminated it, $93 million; the 
improper use of RDT&E funding for using RDT&E money for procurement, we 
stopped that, $71 million we took out; growth in federally financed 
research centers, $55 million we took out; growth in civilian employee 
travel, $52 million we took out.
  The list goes on and on. We took out a lot of money that we did not 
think was being spent wisely. We have scrutinized this bill probably 
better than any other appropriations bill that has been on this floor. 
We have scrutinized every section of it, and we have come up with a 
bill that has been agreed to by the authorizers, both intelligence and 
the House Committee on National Security, a bipartisan coalition of the 
appropriation subcommittee, the Committee on Appropriations, all of the 
votes on the House. This is a good bill, and to try to cut it by $4 
billion just takes away things that are important to those who serve in 
our military.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, let me say the gentleman 
noted that the defense budget had gone up to 385, as I understand it, 
which I thought was too high then, but he said we have cut it $100 
billion. That is what; about a 30-percent cut? I would ask the 
gentleman from Washington this:
  Given the collapse of the Soviet Union and the switch of sides of so 
many leading nations in the Warsaw Pact to where they are now about to 
join NATO, would he say there has been at least a 30 percent reduction 
in the physical threat faced by the United States since 1985?
  Mr. DICKS. Regaining my time, I would say this to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that what we 
have in the Soviet Union today is in many respects a more dangerous 
situation than we faced before.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman yield, because I want 
to congratulate him for keeping a straight face?
  Mr. DICKS. I cannot yield because I want to finish my statement. I 
would say that when we look at their nuclear weapons, when we look at 
the instability in their society, when we look at the organized crime 
and the Mafia, I worry about the future of Russia, and they still have 
nuclear weapons, and those nuclear weapons are not pointed at anybody 
else. We may have them off target for 5 minutes.
  All I would say is and then we look at Iran, Iraq, we look at North 
Korea, look at emerging China, and I would tell the gentleman I think, 
and if he looks at the program we are trying to fund and sending these 
kids everywhere in the world, to Haiti, to Bosnia, and to everything 
else, we are, the military today is more deployed than it has been, and 
we have cut the money by $100 billion.
  Now we cannot have it both ways. We cannot ask these kids to go out 
there and not adequately train them, adequately equip them, and I think 
it would be a great mistake to cut this $4 billion out in a meat ax 
approach here on the floor when we have got people who have always been 
opposed to defense, who were opposed to it during the cold war.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a couple comments since we are 
talking about the changes, and I have to say to the gentleman who is a 
gentleman that I do not reluctantly oppose, I strongly oppose the 
gentleman's amendment.
  But in review of the Department of Defense program on breast cancer 
research, an advance copy that we received from the Institute of 
Medicine; now, as the Soviet Union declined, we in the defense 
subcommittee, the Subcommittee on National Security, tried to change 
the emphasis in the Defense Department.

                              {time}  1530

  We tried to initiate programs which were important to quality of 
life. One of them was breast cancer. I personally started the breast 
cancer research program with $35 million several years ago. It must 
have been 5 years ago. Since that time, we have spent $500 million in 
breast cancer research. There have been questions on both sides of the 
aisle whether this was a good program, whether NIH should be handling 
the program and not the Defense Department.
  Here are the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences:

       The committee concluded that USAMRMC has succeeded in 
     establishing a fair peer review system, a broad-based 
     research portfolio, by stimulating scientists from a wide 
     range of disciplines to participate as applicants, reviewers, 
     and advisors.

  We are talking about the cancer program in the Department of Defense.

       The committee commends the Army for developing such a 
     program under the serious time constraints and fluctuations 
     in funding that have characterized the program to date. 
     Moreover, the program fills a unique niche among public and 
     private funding sources for cancer research. It is not 
     duplicative of other programs and is a promising vehicle for 
     forging new ideas and scientific breakthroughs in the 
     Nation's fight against breast cancer. Among the most 
     outstanding features of the program are the flexible 
     approaches for setting priorities annually, the involvement 
     of breast cancer advocates and the consumers in the giant 
     peer review process, and the level of commitment and 
     diligence of the individuals who serve the program in various 
     capacities.

  Mr. Chairman, this program started because of women, spouses, 
dependents in the Defense Department who came to me. I presented the 
program to the subcommittee. They agreed wholeheartedly something ought 
to be done. When we first presented it to the Department of the Army, 
they could not figure out what to do with the money. Finally, they 
started the program, which has received these rave reviews.
  We have started also an ovarian cancer program. We started a program 
on

[[Page H5980]]

ovarian cancer, on prostate cancer. The chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bill Young], started a bone marrow program 
which has had a phenomenal success in indexing people who have had the 
possibility of being able to transfer bone marrow from one person to 
another.
  We have tried over the years to expand the programs away from the 
past and to take care of quality of life, because the tempo of 
operations has been so high and because we know quality of life is so 
important. We have troops that have spent three or four Christmases 
away from home. We have troops that have to get out of the service 
because the families have been left alone so much. We have a real 
recruitment problem. We have tried to put money in those resources.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no question in my mind, the cuts that have 
been made in defense have been so severe with the tempo of operations 
that we are talking about, that we are having a real problem with 
attracting the kind of people we want into the service.
  A couple of years ago I reported to the committee that I did not have 
the number of people applying to the academies that I had had in the 
past. As a matter of fact, we had to have a couple hundred. Now it is 
down to 40 or 50. That is disappointing and discouraging. I realize the 
economy is in competition. I recognize the fact that many, many people 
can make more money on the outside but are not willing to make the 
sacrifices. The quality of the troops is absolutely essential to the 
success of the military and the success of these deployments.
  I would hope the Members of Congress would oppose this amendment to 
cut 1 percent, or $4 billion, out of the defense budget. I would hope 
they would have confidence that we have already passed a distribution 
which we do not think is enough but which we are abiding by, and that 
they will support the committee in our transition, in moving away.
  We cut procurement from $120 to $40 billion over the last few years. 
We have a problem in modernization, so we are trying to keep readiness 
up. We ask the support of the House so we can go forward with these 
quality-of-life programs.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to indicate that I rise in support 
of the Shays-Frank amendment. The practical effect of this amendment is 
that it would freeze military expenditures to last year's level, 
deriving $3.9 billion in cuts. In supporting that amendment, I would 
like to make a few comments.
  First, the gentleman from Washington, in the context of his remarks, 
used the term ``those people who are always opposed to defense.''
  Mr. Chairman, our position has been over the years, without fail, 
that we need to spend what is necessary on defense, but let us have an 
honest, rational, intelligent debate over what is, indeed, necessary. 
There is nothing very bright, very intelligent, very intellectual, to 
use phrases like ``I am strong on defense.''
  What does that mean? It is a bumper sticker slogan. We are supposed 
to be here to rationally and intelligently engage each other. Just 
because people rise to cut the budget does not mean they are opposed to 
defense. That is bizarre and extreme, and I challenge anyone to come to 
the mike and really make that case.
  Mr. Chairman, having said that, let me go to the second point. A 
number of my colleagues have marched into the well and argued that we 
have already cut the budget, we have already cut defense. Let us put 
that in its proper context. In the heyday of the height of the cold 
war, during the period of the 1980's, we spent in excess of $300 
billion per year, during the decade of the 1980's, which means in that 
10-year period we spent over $3 trillion on the military budget.
  The cold war is now over, Mr. Chairman. During the period we were 
spending $300 billion a year, 70 percent, extrapolating mathematically, 
that means $210 billion per year of that $300 billion, was designed to 
prepare us to fight a war either with the Soviet Union or the Warsaw 
Pact. Like magic, Mr. Chairman, the Soviet Union no longer exists. 
Communists cannot be elected President of the Soviet Union. It no 
longer exists. A democrat is now President of Russia. The Warsaw Pact 
no longer exists.
  Do Members have to be brilliant rocket scientists to understand that 
if we are spending $300 billion a year, 70 percent of that money 
designed to fight two enemies that no longer exist, that we certainly 
can reduce the military budget? No, we do not have to be very bright, 
just to have what my grandmother used to call mother wit, street sense, 
modest intelligence, and we can understand that we can bring down the 
military budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I would assert that we are much more likely to be 
engaged in the Haitis, the Somalias, the Rwandas, and the Bosnias of 
the world than we are to engage in major war; peacekeeping, as opposed 
to warfighting. That has enormous implications.
  For those who argue that now that the Soviet Union no longer exists, 
the Warsaw Pact no longer exists, suddenly the world is more dangerous, 
that is making an extreme and bizarre set of arguments. There are 
dangers there, but we ought to be intelligent enough to talk about the 
reality of those dangers and the parameters of those dangers, not on 
30-second sound bites, not on bumper sticker comments, and not on 
comments that do not challenge people to think, to be rational, and to 
be intelligent, like ``I am strong on defense,'' as if that suddenly 
means something. We are strong on defense, but we ought to have a 
debate on what that means.
  Mr. Chairman, one of my colleagues got up and talked about how far 
this budget is cut. If Members listen very carefully to all the lists 
of the things that were cut, what did we cut? Consultant fees. Big 
challenge when you are cutting consultant fees. Everybody in here can 
cut consultant fees. Or we are going to cut bureaucrats. Gee, it takes 
great courage to cut bureaucrats. It takes great courage to cut an 
agency. But have Members seen anybody stand up and say, we have cut 
somebody's weapons system? No. In here, we buy each other's toys, no 
matter how many billions of dollars it costs to buy those toys.
  Just a few moments ago, we rejected an effort that would have saved 
$27 billion. We walked away from that. But we can cut consultant fees 
and we can cut a few bureaucrats.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dellums was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, let us talk about where we can cut. First, 
our whole approach to our force structure, our readiness levels, our 
modernization schedule, et cetera, are all based on a bible that was 
generated as a result of the Persian Gulf War. Remember, Mr. Chairman, 
when Saddam Hussein went into Kuwait, we did not within 48 hours 
suddenly put our troops out there and start to wage war. We built up 
troops. The first thing we did was we put 4,000 troops in Kuwait to 
show resolve. Secondly, we put an aircraft carrier in the area, and 
then for several months, about 7 months, we built up forces, 500,000 
troops. Then we said, now we are going to fight Saddam Hussein.
  After that was all over, we then created a Bible that said, you have 
to be on location to wage a war within 48 hours. Now, stop and think 
about the implications: for the forward deployment, billions of 
dollars; force structure, billions of dollars; inventory, billions of 
dollars.
  All Members have to do is slow down the response time from 48 hours 
to a more reasonable amount of time and they can save billions of 
dollars; no radical idea, just sound planning and thoughtful tactical 
and strategic approaches. We can bring down the readiness level, we can 
gear the readiness. Everyone does not have to be at level one, so it 
costs billions of dollars for that. We can bring down the level of the 
force structure, the deployment schedule becomes different. We can save 
tremendous amounts of money.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, if we got rid of cold war weapons, weapons that 
were designed to fight the cold war, and now that the cold war is no 
longer with us, we are now in this new post-cold-war environment, we 
can stop weapons designed to fight in a cold war situation that no 
longer exists. Again, we do not have to be too bright to get to that 
position. If we designed weapon

[[Page H5981]]

systems for an area that no longer exists, take the weapons system off 
the table and generate weapon systems that are designed, that are much 
more purposeful for the era that you are evolving yourselves into.
  The B-2 is the classic example. This was a weapon that was supposed 
to drop nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union and rearrange the rubble 
after a nuclear war started. But look, Mr. Chairman, that weapons 
system gets built in somebody's district, built in somebody's State, so 
they have to try to find a mission to solve the problem of building 
more of these planes. But that era is over, so now we are trying to 
find a conventional environment to fly a plane that was designed for 
the cold war.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] 
has again expired.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I have to object to that, Mr. Chairman. The 
gentleman has used a lot of time today. He has extended his time 
numerous times. I am constrained to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me, and I rise to close the debate on this amendment today.
  I would like to say to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums], who has spent a lot of time telling us what the world is like 
today but obviously spent very little time listening to some other 
things that were said on the floor, he said, no one has said----
  Mr. DELLUMS. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] has the time.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I am making a point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the gentleman's words be taken down. I am 
listening. I have tried to listen here as much as anyone in these 
Chambers.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Is the gentleman through?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I would ask the gentleman to withdraw that comment about 
listening, because I am one person that is prepared to listen all day, 
Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman would let me continue, I would 
like to clarify that statement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida will suspend. The Clerk will 
report the words.
  Mr. DELLUMS. I ask to withdraw that request, Mr. Chairman.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, what I was trying to say was the 
gentleman stood there just a few minutes ago and said no one came to 
the floor to talk about any weapons systems that were terminated or 
cancelled or stopped. That is not true. Because just a few minutes 
before that, I talked about Aerostat, a program that we stopped. I 
talked about JASSM, a program that we stopped despite the fact that 
there were many in the outside world who wanted to have these programs 
go forward. We did stop the programs. We made many cuts in the requests 
that we had received from all sources. I apologize to the gentleman if 
he is offended by my comment, but his comment offended me somewhat 
because we have made a list of numerous cuts and they are all listed in 
this report. I referred to it several times.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows for over a decade, the 
quarter of a century I have been here, I have never tried to impugn 
anyone's integrity. It was not designed to challenge the gentleman. I 
am always prepared to debate on the substance. I thank the gentleman 
for his apology. My effort was not designed to challenge him in any 
personal way. I think everyone in this Chamber knows me by my 
reputation in that regard.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I think they know both of us in that regard, I would say to my 
distinguished friend from California.
  Mr. Chairman, the arguments about how much we spend and invest in our 
national security versus the rest of the world, that argument has been 
made many, many times today. What is not mentioned in those debates is 
that we have an all-volunteer force. Unlike the Russians, unlike the 
Soviets had, unlike the Iranians, unlike the Chinese, unlike the North 
Koreans, we have an all-volunteer force.
  We pay the Members of our military far more substantially than these 
other nations pay theirs. They pay theirs almost as if it is slave 
labor. In fact at one point we were asked to provide funding to provide 
housing for Russian soldiers, which we did not do, by the way, but we 
were asked to do that. The point is that an all-volunteer service is 
very costly.
  Approximately 70 percent of the money appropriated by this bill does 
not go to buy weapons. It does not go for RDT&E or things of that 
nature. It goes to provide salaries and allowances and clothing and 
housing and medical care and training for the members of the military 
and their families. We are trying to do a better job in that regard. We 
are trying to take those lower ranked people who live in barracks that 
really are not fit, in my opinion, I would not want one of my children 
to live there. We are trying to repair those and renovate them and make 
the quality of life better.
  We are trying to get to the point that, if a mother brings her 
daughter into a military hospital while the husband is overseas on 
deployment, they do not have to wait four or five hours with a child in 
pain from an infected ear or something like that. Those are the things 
that we are trying to do in this bill. The dollars for procurement, the 
Joint Chiefs, the war fighters will tell you that even this bill does 
not provide anywhere near the modernization or procurement dollars that 
they, the war fighters, think that they need. I am not talking about 
the folks in the Pentagon. I am not talking about the budget office. I 
am talking about the war fighters who are deployed around the world, 
the commanders of those units that understand what the shortages are.
  There are real shortages. I know some Members get tired of me rolling 
out this scroll. I will not roll it out today. But it could go from one 
side of this well to the other listing items that are never written 
about in the news media or reported on radio or television. They are 
never the subject of some great committee hearing. But what they are 
are items like flashlights and compasses and small arms ammunition and 
things of this nature, communications gear, communications cable that 
need to be purchased to keep the infrastructure working. They are 
listed here. On this scroll it is hard to tell, but some of them have 
been outlined in blue ink that means we have taken care of those items 
that are essential.
  The ones that have not been outlined in blue still need to be taken 
care of. We do not need to cut this budget by this bill by $4 billion. 
We ought to go ahead and defeat this amendment and then pass the bill 
and get onto other business.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to 
me. I would like to finish my remarks with respect to where we can save 
money. I mentioned about the time factor slowing that down, save 
billions of dollars, not a radical idea. Moving away from cold war 
weapons, saving billions of dollars, not a radical idea.
  Mr. Chairman, the third place where we can save money is to reduce 
our nuclear forces, our nuclear weapons and reduce the inventory that 
supports our nuclear weapons. We all know that we are going to move to 
Start III. We ought to anticipate moving to Start III. None of us in 
this room would put money in a base that is going to be closed. We know 
that we are going to Start III. Why do we put money in this budget for 
D-5 missiles for the deployment on Trident submarines when we know 
eventually we are going to reduce the number of submarines, reduce

[[Page H5982]]

the number of weapons, thereby saving billions of dollars?
  By reducing our nuclear arsenal for our children and our children's 
children, and reducing the infrastructure designed to support those 
nuclear weapons, we can indeed reduce, save billions of dollars.
  Fourth, on the question of presence, we deploy nuclear aircraft 
carrier task force around the world for the purposes of presence. I 
have asked on numerous occasions, why do you need a task force as 
muscular as a nuclear carrier task force in order to simply show 
presence? Can you not show presence with a task force that is much less 
muscular than a nuclear task force? That can save you billions of 
dollars. In terms of the ships you deploy, in terms of the personnel, 
in terms of the planes, et cetera, et cetera. Billions of dollars.
  Finally, we cannot talk, Mr. Chairman, about the intelligence budget, 
but there are many of us here who have intimate knowledge about the 
intelligence budget. I can assure you that there are places that the 
intelligence budget can be cut. At the end of the day, what we are 
saying with this amendment is that the committee can determine where 
they want to make these cuts. This simply says, go back to last year. 
What I tried to lay out for Members is that there are clearly places 
where we can save billions of dollars; $3.9 billion does not suddenly 
throw the United States from being the only peg standing, the only 
superpower in existence at this point into some Third World position. 
We are an extraordinary military power with extraordinary military 
capability.
  I would ask this rhetorical question. If we had the mightiest 
military force on the face of the earth and our cities were 
deteriorating, our children not being adequately educated, people who 
need to work not able to work, drugs creating problems in our various 
communities, violence overtaking some of our communities, what are we 
out there defending? What this budget, what this does is save us some 
money. At the end of the day I think that redounds to the benefit of 
the country.
  Finally, on a personal note, I would say to the gentleman from 
Florida, he and I walked in the door together. I have never objected to 
the gentleman's comments. Here it is very difficult to make complex 
arguments on multibillion-dollar amendments in 5-minute segments. It is 
just difficult to do. I have never, I have sat there in a position of 
chair of the committee and have never ever once objected to anyone 
standing up debating, because I think that is why we get paid here, is 
to debate.
  Sometimes we get upset when people are debating who have something to 
say and are prepared to challenge them in a fundamental way. I am not 
trying to challenge anyone's intellect here. I am simply saying, let us 
rise to a level that allows us to understand these issues at a profound 
enough level to make us make the right decision.
  I think the Shays-Frank amendment is the proper decision. I think 
that is what we can do. I believe that we can cut money from the 
military budget and the world goes on. The Nation goes on. Our children 
do not die. Our children's children are not threatened. I think that is 
hyperbole and overstatement, Mr. Chairman.
  I appreciate the opportunity that the gentlewoman gave me to conclude 
my remarks. I am simply saying that I think we ought to support this 
amendment, and exaggerated comments to the contrary notwithstanding, I 
think this is a reasonable amendment. I think it can be accomplished 
and I would urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I support also 
the Shays-Frank-Klug-Hinchey-Ramstad-Luther amendment. It makes sense. 
Let us cut wasteful defensive spending and let us invest in our 
children and their education.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 137, 
noes 290, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 337]

                               AYES--137

     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tierney
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Yates

                               NOES--290

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White

[[Page H5983]]


     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Davis (FL)
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Gonzalez
     Ney
     Schiff
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1612

  Mr. BILBRAY and Mr. CHRISTENSEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Ms. CARSON and Mr. PORTER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 336 and 337, I was 
unavoidably detained in Columbus, OH, at an Elections Hearing. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on 336, and ``yes'' on 337.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?
  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.

                              {time}  1615

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
McHugh] having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, 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. 2266), making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1998, and for the other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 198, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. McHugh]. Under the rule, the previous 
question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


          Reducing to 5 Minutes Votes on Postponed Suspensions

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that following 
passage of H.R. 2266, the DOD appropriations, the two votes on 
suspensions debated Monday, July 28, 1997, House Concurrent Resolution 
735 and H.R. 1348, be 5 minutes each.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 322, 
nays 105, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 338]

                               YEAS--322

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--105

     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Clay
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Coburn
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Gonzalez
     Hunter
     Schiff
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1632

  Ms. STABENOW changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________