[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 130 (Thursday, September 25, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7840-H7849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2266, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 1998

  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 242 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 242

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2266) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Goss] is recognized for 1 hour.
  (Mr. Goss asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, Madam Speaker, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only on this subject.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 242 is a very straightforward rule 
that allows the House to consider the conference report on H.R. 2266 
for fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. As is 
customary for this type of legislation, the rule waives all points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration. The 
rule further provides that the conference report shall be considered as 
read.
  Madam Speaker, the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on National Security, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Young] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], have done 
outstanding work in bringing forward this legislation. In our Committee 
on Rules meeting last evening, they received accolades for all of their 
efforts that went into crafting this extraordinarily important bill, 
accolades that came from all Members that were heartfelt and well-
deserved.
  In ensuring that we adequately fund all the necessary elements of our 
national defense, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] have worked together in a 
spirit of bipartisan cooperation that is most fitting for an issue that 
I believe should always transcend partisan differences, and that is, of 
course, our national defense. The readiness and morale of our troops, 
the technical superiority of our equipment, and the integrity of the 
information that is provided to our warfighters and our policymakers, 
these are matters that are too important to be sidetracked by political 
mischief.

[[Page H7841]]

  As chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
I have had the great good fortune to work closely with the defense 
appropriators, moving through the tandem authorization and 
appropriations dance carefully and deliberately, step by step, to make 
sure our national intelligence needs are fully met.
  I believe the final product the House will consider today, 
demonstrates that Congress can and will exercise prudent oversight, 
working in partnership with the Commander in Chief, to protect American 
lives and interests both at home and abroad. We are clearly showing 
that we can fulfill this vital obligation within the constraints of a 
balanced-budget framework.
  Everyone knows that there were tough issues to be resolved in this 
legislation, not just among our House colleagues, but with the other 
body and the administration as well, among them some big policy 
questions. Of course, the bill before us today is the product of tough 
negotiations and some clear compromises from all sides on specific 
programs and language. That is the way it always has been and always 
will be. That is why we are here. But this bill says to our friends and 
our enemies around the world that we will not compromise our core 
commitment to providing for the best possible national defense for the 
United States of America and its people. That is the message we must 
continue to send, and it will be heard.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this rule, which I 
believe is noncontroversial, and this legislation which is critical to 
the well-being of our Nation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the conference 
report. The conference report provides the funds for our national 
security, the funds to defend our borders and our way of life, and the 
funds to ensure that the United States remains the world's leader in 
military might.
  This conference report lives up to the commitment that this Congress 
made when we passed the balanced budget this summer, but it also 
realistically faces and addresses the needs of each of the branches of 
our armed services. This conference report does not provide for every 
need, but it certainly addresses priorities and accordingly deserves 
the support of every Member of this body.
  Madam Speaker, this conference agreement continues the Congress' 
commitment to ensuring that our fighting forces are equipped with the 
best. This commitment assures, as best we can, that should our Nation 
become embroiled in a military engagement, our Armed Forces can fight 
and win with the least number of American casualties as is possible. 
But more important, Madam Speaker, our Armed Forces represent the best 
trained and best equipped military in the world, which will make our 
enemies think twice before provoking a confrontation.
  As General Shalikashvili said yesterday in his speech to the National 
Press Club, ``An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of 
cure.'' This bill provides our military with far more than an ounce of 
prevention, and hopefully we will not have to test the cure.
  This bill ensures that our fighting forces now and in the future will 
be equipped to fight and win. The conference agreement provides for $2 
billion to continue the development of the F-22 fighter, the next 
generation fighter aircraft for the Air Force. The B-2 bomber funding 
level has been cut by $176 million from the House-passed amount, but 
the $331 million in the conference agreement still includes funds which 
may be used for the procurement of long-lead-term components to restart 
the B-2 production line. In addition, Madam Speaker, the conference 
agreement includes $627 million for the procurement in fiscal year 1998 
of seven new B-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft for the Marine Corps, and 
an additional $62.1 million for advanced procurement of seven more 
aircraft in fiscal year 1999.
  Madam Speaker, this conference agreement totals $247.7 billion in 
budget authority and is consistent with the overall fiscal year 1998 
defense spending totals agreed to by the President and the Congress in 
the 1997 budget agreement. I commend the conferees for bringing a good 
product back to the House and urge passage of this important 
appropriations bill.
  Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of the conference report and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on 
the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order 
that a quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 419, 
nays 3, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 441]

                               YEAS--419

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes

[[Page H7842]]


     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--3

     Manton
     Ortiz
     Weldon (PA)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bonilla
     DeGette
     Foglietta
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     Linder
     McInnis
     Rogan
     Schiff
     Tauzin

                              {time}  1212

  Messrs. SHADEGG, VENTO, PITTS, JACKSON of Illinois, and Ms. PRYCE of 
Ohio changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
242, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2266) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

                              {time}  1215

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
242, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Tuesday, September 23, 1997, at page H7656.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Young] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] each will 
control 30 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, is the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] opposed to the bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha] opposed to the conference report?
  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I support it slightly.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I claim 20 minutes in 
opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young].


                             General Leave

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2266 and that I may 
include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would just like to point out that this has been a 
rather grueling task to get us to the point where we are today. And 
with the strong cooperation of the members of the subcommittee on our 
side, on the Republican side, and on the Democratic side led by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the tremendous work of our 
staff with the principal staffer director Kevin Roper and the staff 
that worked with him, as well as Greg Dahlberg, who is the principal 
staffer of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], we have put 
together what I think is an excellent defense bill, with one major 
problem.
  The major problem is there are so many other items that we ought to 
be considering and providing for in this bill that we do not because 
the 602(b) allocations were not adequate to fund the necessary things 
that we felt were important to our Nation's security and also to the 
welfare and the care of those who serve in uniform.
  But because of the strong work done by all of those folks involved, 
we have a good bill. It provides the prioritized requirements of the 
Defense Department for all of the services. It makes a very strong 
statement on providing what is needed for quality of life for those who 
wear the uniform in defense of our Nation.
  Without going into a lot of detail, the bill is pretty much like it 
was when it passed the House before, with the exception that by the 
time we got to conference, our 602 allocation was reduced, so we had to 
reduce the number in the bill by over $600 million.
  Now, despite all of that, we came to conference nearly $9 billion 
apart on specific items. Because of the very good cooperation with our 
counterparts, and I want to specifically mention Senator Stevens and 
Senator Inouye and the Members on the Senate side, we have crafted a 
conference report that is, in my opinion, one of the best we have 
presented to the House.
  At this point I would like to insert a summary of the conference 
agreement for the Record.

[[Page H7843]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25SE97.000

 

[[Page H7844]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25SE97.001

 

[[Page H7845]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25SE97.002



[[Page H7846]]

  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I would like to engage the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young], the chairman of the committee, in a colloquy on a 
matter of great concern to me.
  This conference report reduces the budget request for operating the 
Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office, or DARO, by about $14 million. 
In taking this action, it is my understanding that the conferees were 
silent regarding changes in the subordination, mission, size, and 
structure of this office. As I understand it, these matters relating to 
DARO will be addressed in the defense authorization conference, which 
has not yet concluded.
  Is this the understanding of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], 
the distinguished chairman?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say 
to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] that that is correct. That 
is my understanding and that is my intent.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
would also then like to ask my colleague whether it is his view that, 
should the Secretary of Defense choose to seek approval for a 
reprogramming action for any or all of this $14 million, the committee 
would be willing to consider such a request, depending, of course, on 
the outcome of the authorization conference?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, again I 
would say to my colleague, if the Secretary decides that this is a high 
priority item, I definitely would consider a request for reprogramming 
under our usual procedures.
  Mr. SISISKY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SISISKY. Madam Speaker, I would like to engage the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young], chairman of the committee, in a matter that is of 
concern to me.
  I understand there is report language in this bill which requires the 
Navy to report back to the Congress on the impact pilot program now 
being conducted at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. I would simply ask the 
chairman to clarify the intent of this language. Is the language in 
fact directed solely at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would 
respond to the question of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky] by 
saying yes and say to him that this language addresses only the notion 
of combining a Fleet Intermediate Maintenance Facility with a naval 
shipyard at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. This language is not intended 
to, in any way, impact ongoing regional maintenance activities at any 
other shipyard.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, in section 8123 of the conference report, 
the Secretary of Defense is given the authority to waive Buy American 
restrictions under certain conditions. I am very concerned about the 
potential economic impact that would result if the Secretary uses this 
authority in the area of specialty metals.
  To avoid any negative impact, I believe the Secretary should not 
waive the Buy American restrictions for products classified under the 
headings of 8211 through 8215 in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I agree with 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. The committee would be 
gravely concerned if the Secretary waived Buy American provisions for 
those products. And I would say to the gentleman that we believe that 
the conference report actually strengthens the Buy American situation 
as it exists today.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Young] would continue to yield, I appreciate his attention to this 
vital concern.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I believe the conference committee did, given what it 
had to work with, a very good job. I was particularly pleased that they 
have adopted language which will enable the President to refuse to go 
ahead with any new B-2 bombers. I assume, given the President's strong 
position on this and the Pentagon's opposition to new B-2 bombers, that 
he will in fact use this authority and we will not be further 
committing to the construction of new B-2 bombers.
  But there is still a fundamental problem with the bill. I want to 
talk about two of them. First, it continues to spend too much money. 
Roughly 50 percent of the discretionary spending allowed to the Federal 
Government under the recently signed budget deal will be consumed by 
the military and related intelligence functions. Every other function 
of the Government, environment, public safety here at home, 
transportation, they are all going to suffer increasingly from 
inadequate funding.
  I am a supporter of the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster], who chairs the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, to get more funding for highway and transit funds. I 
believe we have a very serious problem here which could be alleviated 
in part by increased funding.
  I think we would better serve the true security needs of the American 
people by diverting some of the funds that now go for national security 
in the strictly military sense to improving our security here through 
improving our infrastructure.
  There are a number of things in the bill that I would object to. But 
I want to talk about one particular area where we are spending tens of 
billions, wholly unnecessarily, and not because of any national 
security need of the United States, properly understood.
  This bill, not through the fault necessarily of the Members here, but 
because this administration, as every one before it, has acquiesced in 
a policy of allowing our Western European allies and some of our Asian 
allies to take a free ride on the U.S. Government.
  Let me give an example. We are about, once again, to get into a 
debate about pulling out of Bosnia. I voted to have the American troops 
withdraw from Bosnia. I voted to have American troops withdrawn in 
December. I think we should be proud of the intervention that we made 
that stopped a serious loss of life, and I think they have made some 
progress towards improvement, although I am not hopeful that we will 
ultimately get where we should be.
  But there are two separate questions that are being treated as one. 
First, should there be a continued presentation of military forces in 
Bosnia to try to enforce basic human rights? And second, must the 
United States be a part of it?
  The United States, without any help from our European allies, stands 
in South Korea along with the South Koreans, as we have to these days, 
to deter and, hopefully it will not happen, but if necessary, to repel 
an attack from North Korea.
  The United States takes the leading military role with very little 
help from our European allies in trying to enforce peace in the Middle 
East, confronting the Iraqi and Iranian regimes. The United States, of 
course, takes the leading role in our own hemisphere, in Haiti and 
elsewhere.
  Mr. Speaker, is it never Europe's turn? Is there never a time when we 
can ask our Western European allies to carry on without us? And I know 
what they are now saying. They are saying that there will not be a 
European military presence in Bosnia unless the United States is a part 
of it.
  I think we should do our part, and I think it is important to be 
there. But I do not understand why our wealthy European allies cannot 
take on their share of the burden. And I say this for this reason: If 
we look at military expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic 
product, as a percentage of Government expenditures, the U.S. 
percentage dwarfs our European allies.
  I believe, by the way, that the problem is not that they spend too 
little but that we spend too much. I am not asking them to get up to 
our level. I am saying that a situation in which they pressure us to 
spend excessively is a mistake. I do believe with regard to

[[Page H7847]]

the Bosnian situation that it is fair for us to ask Germany, Italy, 
France, England, and the Scandinavian countries and the Benelux 
countries and others to do this. I do not understand why they are not 
capable without us of dealing with Western Europe.
  We have the obligation in the Middle East. We have the obligation in 
Haiti. We have the obligation in South Korea. I support our involvement 
in all those areas. But I do not understand why we allow it to be so 
one-sided.
  And it is not simply Bosnia that is the problem. The Bosnian 
situation, if that were the only one, it would not cause such a great 
problem. The problem is this: We continue to spend tens of billions of 
dollars for the military defense of Western Europe. We cannot know 
exactly how much because they will not tell us.
  That is wasted money. It is spent for very brave people. It is spent 
for very good equipment. The problem is not the people and equipment. 
The problem is there is no necessity. The only reason we are militarily 
committed to the defense of Western Europe is cultural lack.

                              {time}  1230

  There was a serious threat 50 years ago to European countries from a 
totalitarian aggressive regime, and they were poor and not able to 
defend themselves. That threat has disappeared. They are now wealthy. 
And we continue to spend. I cite the Bosnian thing only because it is 
an example of the mindset that Europe cannot defend itself.
  As I said, I am not asking for a considerable expenditure increase in 
Europe. I am saying that the Europeans should understand, and we ought 
to take the lead in cutting back substantially on the American military 
presence in Western Europe which serves no purpose from the standpoint 
of defense.
  If we are talking about the need for bases which can go forward into 
other areas, then let us do it on that score. But that is not what has 
happened. What has happened is that we continue to plan for a defense 
of Western Europe militarily, and what we really ought to have is an 
essay contest, Madam Speaker. Let us have an essay contest and give a 
prize to anybody who can identify that threat to Western Europe that we 
are spending tens of billions of dollars to deter, because that is what 
is happening, and we are doing it at the cost here of important 
programs.
  If you live in Western Europe and you lose your job, you do not have 
to worry about losing your health care. In fact, some people believe 
that Western Europe is not doing enough to allow for some instability 
in jobs. But one thing we know is if people lose their jobs in Western 
Europe, they will not lose their health care. If you lose your job in 
America, you probably lose your health care, particularly if you are in 
the manufacturing area. Why can the Europeans afford to do so much more 
with health care than we can? Because we are defending them militarily 
against a nonexistent threat.
  So I want to be clear. I am not insisting that they do more, I am 
insisting that they take responsibility for their own defense. Indeed, 
I think nothing we could do would more graphically improve the sense of 
security in Western Europe than to tell them that they were in charge 
of their own defense, because I guarantee you that if we told the 
Western Europeans they were in charge of their own military defense, 
they would suddenly feel a lot safer than they do today. As long as the 
American taxpayer is going to pay for their defense, they are very 
insecure, and they tell us we need to be there. If they were told that 
they were in charge of their own defense, I think they would 
acknowledge the fact that they are not threatened, and they could 
maintain a reasonable level.
  Let me make a connection, Madam Speaker. We are debating here the 
question of fast track. We are debating the question of international 
trade. One of the reasons you have so much resistance on the part of 
American workers, which I share, to further international trade is that 
we now leave them unprotected if they happen to be the losers when 
international trade goes forward. And there will be winners and losers. 
I believe there will probably be more winners than losers, but there 
will be losers. We have a social and economic system now that leaves 
the losers unprotected. Increase the social safety net for those who 
will be the losers in the transitional impact in international trade, 
and you cut back their resistance.
  When John Kennedy launched the Alliance for Progress, he looked back 
to Franklin Roosevelt's good neighbor policy in Latin America, and he 
said, talking about how Roosevelt had pioneered internationalism 
economically, Franklin Roosevelt could be a good neighbor abroad 
because he was a good neighbor at home.
  Those who want America to be more forthcoming internationally in the 
economic area have to understand that part of that resistance comes 
from American workers who feel they will not be fairly treated in the 
transition. One way to do that is to stop committing tens of billions 
of dollars, as this bill continues to do, for the military defense of 
our wealthy allies in Western Europe against a nonexistent threat. I 
would hope that we would change this policy, we would tell our Western 
European allies that yes, we think the Bosnian thing is important, and 
we have taken a major role, and American air and sea power would remain 
available if it had to be called in, but the ground presence in Bosnia 
ought to be the Western European ground presence.
  There is no rational argument why those countries, together having 
hundreds of millions of people, having the economy they have, could not 
do that work. That would be a first step in our making substantial 
reductions in our military expenditures, leaving no vital interest 
unprotected, putting ourselves at no military disadvantage, but simply 
adapting to the current reality that our wealthy Western European 
allies face no threat that they cannot handle themselves, and certainly 
nothing that justifies the tens of billions of dollars of continued 
expenditures of American money that comes out of other important 
programs, or out of deficit reduction, or out of tax reduction. Members 
would have the choice how to deal with it. For that reason, Madam 
Speaker, I will oppose this conference report.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, it is amazing for those that talk 
about the defense budget is too much, that have never served in the 
armed services and seen hostility or even seen the odd end of a weapon, 
but yet we ask our men and women to do that every single day. Too much, 
but our budget is less than it was in 1930.
  I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts. Bosnia, by the time we 
pull out in June, is going to cost the United States $12 billion. Does 
it come out of the social programs? No. It comes out of the already 
limited budget that we have before you today.
  I was asked why do we have aircraft that are crashing all over the 
United States? Listen to this. Air Force; high operational tempo; 
keeping aging planes going with a lack of maintenance, shrinking 
budgets; recent series of aircraft accidents according to Air Force 
officials. We are asking our men and women to fly these machines with 
one-half the flying time that they should. The maintenance on the 
aircraft is not being done. Yet we do not have the dollars in here to 
put into it because the dollars that we do have comes out to pay for 
Bosnia and other contingencies.
  In Haiti, Aristide is still there. Aideed's son is in Somalia. That 
costs billions of dollars; not out of social programs, but defense.
  Our committee has done a good job, but when people sit back and say 
that we are spending too much on defense, I would ask you to take a 
look at what our kids are doing. We have not bought a new Air Force 
fighter in 25 years. The SU-27, the SU-35 and the SU-37, the Russian 
airplane, outclasses, outperforms our F-14 and our F-15. The AA-12 and 
the AA-10 missile that the Russians have outclasses our best AMRAAM 
missile, but yet the cold war is over. And they are shipping them to 
China and every country that is a potential threat to our men and 
women. Are we spending enough, Madam Speaker? Absolutely not.

[[Page H7848]]

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the leaders of 
the Committee on National Security. It looks like the B-2, which I was 
going to spend a lot more of my attention than is now going to be 
necessary, is moving toward its well-deserved fate, and all of you have 
had something to do with it. I still have problems with this two-war 
strategy that now fuels a $250 billion military piece. I think that is 
a little too much. The Seawolf submarine, the nuclear submarine, when I 
was the chairman, we were holding hearings on the Seawolf submarine. 
Star Wars has been reconfigured at least a half a dozen times. They 
throw it out, reinvent it, and come up with some more stuff. There are 
too many F-22s. In other words, there is way too much, $247 billion 
worth, in this kind of global situation that we find ourselves in.
  Madam Speaker, it is too much dough. We have got to cut it down. We 
have got to reduce it. I hope that you who lead this committee will 
continue to give that at least if not your undivided attention, more of 
your attention. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume only to say again that this is a good bill. It meets most 
of the needs of the Department of Defense and those who serve in the 
uniform.
  Again, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] for the tremendous support and cooperation 
that we gave each other and all the members of the subcommittee, Mr. 
McDade, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Nethercutt, 
Mr. Istook, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Hefner, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Dixon, 
and Mr. Visclosky. I want to also compliment the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
for having helped us through some difficult times when some major 
decisions had to be made.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today to declare my 
pride at the inclusion of $160 million for breast cancer-related 
research in the fiscal year 1998 Defense appropriations bill. This 
figure represents a significant 42-percent increase over last year's 
appropriation. Breast cancer research has long been an important 
priority of mine, as well as of my colleagues in the Congressional 
Caucus for Women's Issues. I am pleased our voices are being heard.
  The Department of Defense's peer-reviewed breast cancer research 
program is well known, both for its vital work in fighting this disease 
and its innovative and efficient use of resources. In fact, over 90 
percent of program funds go directly to research grants.
  The emphasis on research is crucial, for while there have been 
several significant advances we still know relatively little about 
preventing breast cancer, and treatment options are few. Unfortunately, 
American women still face a one in eight chance of developing breast 
cancer during their lifetime. With nearly 200,000 cases diagnosed last 
year, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer among women. In 
fact, it accounts for one of every three cancer diagnoses among women.
  In order to make the most of recent discoveries, and to improve the 
lives of future generations of women, we need measures like this that 
invest in breast cancer research. I am also happy to note that this 
bill has increased funding for HIV and prostate cancer research as 
well.
  I was especially pleased earlier this year when this Congress 
included my bill, the Breast Cancer Early Detection Act of 1997, in the 
Balanced Budget Agreement. Prior to passage of this measure, annual 
mammograms were covered for Medicare-eligible women between ages 50 and 
65. However, after age 65 Medicare only allowed for a mammogram every 
other year.
  This policy ran counter to the research, which has found that 80 
percent of all cancer occurs in women over 50. My bipartisan bill 
ensured that Medicare provided coverage for annual mammograms for all 
women.
  I applaud Congress on these wise investments. They provide hope to 
American women and their families, and will provide the ultimate 
return: saving women's lives.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
report. I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the National 
Security Subcommittee on Appropriations for his hard work during the 
negotiations to fight for the House's position on Bosnia.
  Since November 1995, we have seen the administration break promise 
after promise and kick the can down the road, on a definite U.S. troop 
withdrawal date.
  The first mission was IFOR--the implementation force; currently it is 
SFOR--the stabilization force; next to come is DFOR--the deterrence 
force.
  Why just yesterday, Secretary of State Albright said ``We do have a 
long-term interest in Bosnia--strategic as well as humanitarian.''
  What is next Madam Speaker, EFOR--the eternal force?
  This past June, the House spoke clearly and overwhelmingly to hold 
the President to his June 1998 exit date--the third such date he has 
told the American people he would bring our troops home.
  I realize the Senate did not want to take any substantive action on 
this important U.S. military operation.
  However, I am pleased that some language was incorporated into this 
bill, although, it is not as strong as I would have liked.
  Madam Speaker, Congress needs to regain control of the situation, and 
I think we come one step closer with the language included in this 
bill. I hope we haven't given the President too much wiggle room.
  It cuts off funds for the Bosnia mission in June 1998, and forces the 
President to consult, certify, and provide a separate spending vehicle 
to Congress to extend the mission past the withdrawal deadline.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in 
supporting this important Bosnia language.
  Mr. COMBEST. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished 
chairman and the members of the committee for appropriating $2 million 
for risk-based research on the effect of toxic chemicals on human 
health and the environment. This funding is intended for the use by the 
Institute for Environmental and Human Health, which is located at Reese 
Air Force Base in my district. The institute was created and 
implemented by Texas Tech University, which has entered into a 
cooperative agreement with Brooks Air Force Base to provide 
multidisciplinary environmental research, education, public outreach, 
and risk assessment.
  The primary focus of this institute will be the integration of 
environmental impact assessment and human health in the context of 
science-based risk assessment. The institute will provide a critical 
resource for the Department of Defense as it grapples with significant 
environmental problems at bases nationwide and abroad. The institute 
will enable the Department to fulfill several of its stated 
environmental research and risk assessment needs and goals.
  In addition, the location of the institute at Reese Air Force base 
will play a critical role in the redevelopment of Reese Air Force Base 
and the economic development of the surrounding region. The $2 million 
appropriation will enable Texas Tech to leverage an additional $4 
million in State funds which will be used to address the myriad of 
environmental concerns in west Texas and throughout the Nation.
  Madam Speaker, the support of the committee is appreciated. We look 
forward to working in cooperation with the Department of Defense to 
achieve significant environmental research and assessment goals.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 356, 
nays 65, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 442]

                               YEAS--356

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss

[[Page H7849]]


     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--65

     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Chenoweth
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kind (WI)
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Morella
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Paul
     Payne
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Stark
     Torres
     Vento
     Watt (NC)
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bonilla
     Foglietta
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Largent
     McInnis
     Owens
     Rogan
     Schiff
     Solomon

                              {time}  1303

  Messrs. RUSH, HINCHEY and BLUMENAUER, changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Ms. SANCHEZ and Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________