[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.
____________________