[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.
____________________