[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9579-H9586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1745
    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1119, 
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that time yielded to 
the following Members: The gentleman

[[Page H9580]]

from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Becerra], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Condit], the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley], 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley] and the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Roybal-Allard] for the purpose of noticing a question 
of privilege not count against the one-half hour yielded to me by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  (Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to proceed out of 
order.)


     Notice of Intention to Offer Motion to Instruct on H.R. 2267, 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related 
                   Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XXVIII, 
I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a motion to instruct 
conferees on H.R. 2267. The form of the motion is as follows:
  Mr. ROHRABACHER moved that the managers on the part of the House at 
the conference on the disagreeing of votes of the House and the Senate 
on H.R. 2267, Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998, be instructed to 
insist on the House's disagreement with section 111 of the Senate 
amendment which provides for a permanent extension of section 245(i) of 
the Immigration and Nationalities Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's statement will appear in the 
Record.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 278 waives all points of 
order against the conference report accompanying H.R. 1119 and that is 
the fiscal 1998 defense authorization bill, the most important bill to 
come before this body in any given year. The rule also provides that 
the conference report be considered as read. This is, of course, the 
traditional type of rule for consideration of conference reports and 
will allow expedited consideration of this very vital piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the annual defense authorization bill is without 
question the most important bill we will consider this year. In doing 
our business, that sometimes seems routine, we should never lose sight 
of the fact that the number one duty of the Federal Government is the 
protection of national security, and that is exactly what this 
conference report is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, as usual, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and 
their staffs have done outstanding work. I commend them and urge 
support for the rule so that they can get on with the business of the 
day.
  Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely imperative that this bill contain 
adequate funding for the young men and women in uniform who are right 
now out in the field standing vigilant on behalf of all Americans in 
Bosnia, in South Korea and other parts of the world. Mr. Speaker, it is 
imperative that this bill set out policies which are consistent with 
and seek to maintain the unique warrior culture of the military. For 
without that, we cannot win wars and that is what militaries are for. 
No matter whether some Members like that or not. Some Members seem to 
have forgotten about that in recent years.
  Mr. Speaker, to the best extent possible, this bill does all of that. 
At $268 billion plus, the bill adds nearly 3 billion to President's 
Clinton's wholly inadequate request. The bill adds 3.6 billion to the 
President's request for procurement alone, and $570 million for 
research and development over and above the President's request, and 
that is so very, very important because if we are going to put young 
men and women in uniform in harm's way, we had better put them there 
with the best that money can buy and research and development can 
obtain. These accounts contain adequate funding for the weapons systems 
of tomorrow such as the F-22 stealth fighter, the Marine Corps V-22 
troop carrier, which is vital to the kind of rapid deployment war that 
we will fight in the future, and the next generation of aircraft 
carriers and submarines as well.
  These accounts also contain funding to bring us one step closer to 
developing and deploying defenses against ballistic missiles, something 
for which Members will be grateful some day.
  This conference report also contains a 2.8 percent pay raise for our 
military and it adds significant funding increases for barracks, for 
family housing, for child care centers. And, Mr. Speaker, Members 
should remember that years ago, when I served in the military in the 
United States Marine Corps, 80 percent of us were single. Today the 
vast majority of military personnel are married. They have families. It 
is absolutely imperative that they have barracks, they have family 
housing, and that they have child care centers so that we can expect to 
attract the best cross-section of America that we can.
  Despite all these excellent provisions in this bill, Mr. Speaker, let 
me again go on record, we continue to provide inadequate, yes, 
inadequate funds for this Nation's defenses. This bill will represent 
the 13th straight year of inflation-adjusted cuts in the budget. No 
other large account in the Federal budget has been cut so much as the 
defense budget.
  Our military is vastly smaller and older than just 6 years ago when 
we had to deploy troops in a place called the Persian Gulf. Most 
experts agree today that such a mission would simply be impossible if 
we tried to undertake it.
  Of course, this is not the fault of the Committee on National 
Security. They have operated under severe constraints. It is also not 
the fault of the House Committee on National Security that this 
Congress, and I want everybody to listen to this, this Congress has 
failed to stop Communist China from securing a beachhead in this 
country in Long Beach, California. Members all better wake up and pay 
attention to that.
  The House version of this bill contained a provision that would have 
barred the lease of the Long Beach Naval Base to Communist China's 
intelligence-gathering shipping company named COSCO.
  But at the intense insistence of a Democrat Member of the other body, 
the provision has been watered down with a Presidential waiver, and we 
all know that President Clinton will use that waiver.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a scandal of huge proportions. This Communist 
Government which tried to buy the 1996 election in this country may now 
be handed an intelligence-gathering facility on American shores. I 
never heard of such a thing and never believed it could happen in this 
Congress. What have we come to?
  A bitterly ironic part of this story, Mr. Speaker, is that private 
groups in California may yet succeed in denying COSCO this lease 
through a court injunction. According to press reports, the City of 
Long Beach is now looking for other tenants. Is it not something that 
the city of Long Beach may bail us out, we, the Congress? Think about 
it.
  Private citizens can block Communist China from securing a beachhead 
on American soil on environmental and historical grounds, but this 
United States Congress cannot stop China on national security grounds. 
It is truly a disgrace.
  Mr. Speaker, because of one or perhaps a few Members of the other 
body, this Congress has been disgraced. I resent it.
  Despite all this, I nonetheless urge support of the rule and this 
conference report today. It is vital legislation, and it is simply the 
best we can do at this juncture. And once again, I would commend the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] and the Committee on National Security and 
their staffs for their excellent work on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the conference report 
on the

[[Page H9581]]

Department of Defense authorization for fiscal year 1998. This 
conference report provides funds essential to sustain force readiness, 
for the critical weapons systems and equipment that will ensure the 
continued superiority of the U.S. military, and for increases in pay 
and allowances and for other necessary quality of life improvements our 
men and women in uniform and for their families.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, this conference report authorizes the programs 
that make up our military strength today and which will ensure that our 
forces remain second to none in the 21st Century.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement does take a forward look on the 
needs of our military in the new century. First and foremost, the 
conference agreement contains a 2.8 percent pay increase for the 
military and provides for funding for construction and improvement of 
troop and family housing. The agreement also contains a consolidation 
of housing allowances, stabilizes service members' pay for those times 
when service members participate in training exercises or are on 
deployment, and provides increases in the family separation allowance 
and hazardous duty incentive pay. These are all important matters that 
increase moral and will hopefully help retain the valuable services of 
men and women who serve this country in uniform.
  The agreement provides funding for the acquisition of seven V-22 
Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. The V-22 is designed to replace the Marine 
Corps' aging fleets of CH-46 helicopters and will transport Marines and 
their equipment into combat. The conference report provides $2.1 
billion for continued research and development and $74.9 million for 
advanced procurement for the F-22 Raptor. The F-22 is the next 
generation air superiority fighter which is yet another system in the 
overall arsenal of the U.S. military which will take us into the new 
century in a position of power.
  Mr. Speaker, the conferees have authorized $331 million for long lead 
time related to the procurement of additional B-2's, or for 
modification and repair of the existing B-2 fleet, should the President 
certify Congress that additional aircraft are not needed by the Air 
Force. An important part of the conference agreement relating to the B-
2 fleet is the requirement that the Secretary of Defense ensure that 
all necessary actions are taken to preserve the option to build more B-
2 bombers until the panel on long-range air power, established by the 
fiscal year 1998 Defense Appropriations Act submits its report to 
Congress. I am gratified that this language will ensure that all of our 
options remain open while the issue of our long-range air power needs 
is studied.
  In sum, Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report that deserves 
the support of every Member of the House. I commend this rule providing 
for its consideration and urge its adoption in order that the House may 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House, I defer to the 
Members named in the unanimous consent agreement to give notice to the 
House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to proceed out of 
order.)


   Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of 
                        Privileges of the House

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby 
give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a 
question of the privileges of the House.
  The form of the resolution is as follows:
       Whereas Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of 
     election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th 
     District of California by the Secretary of State of 
     California and was seated by the U.S. House of 
     Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
       Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the 
     Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; 
     and
       Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been 
     found to be largely without merit, including his charges of 
     improper voting from a business, rather than a residential 
     address; underage voting; double voting; and charges of 
     unusually large numbers of individuals voting from the same 
     address. It was found that those accused of voting from the 
     same address included a Marines barracks and the domicile of 
     nuns; that business addresses were legal residences for the 
     individuals, including the zoo keeper of the Santa Ana Zoo; 
     that duplicate voting was by different individuals; and that 
     those accused of underage voting were of age; and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued 
     unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service to compare their records with Orange County voter 
     registration records, the first time in any election in the 
     history of the United states that the INS has been asked by 
     Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
       Whereas the privacy rights of United States citizens have 
     been violated by the Committee's improper use of those INS 
     records;
       Whereas the INS itself has questioned the validity and 
     accuracy of the Committee's use of INS documents;
       Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request 
     and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual 
     check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing 
     supplemental information on that manual check to the 
     Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the 
     records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on 
     February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records 
     pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and
       Whereas the Members of the House Oversight Committee are 
     now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials 
     already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of 
     State of California; and
       Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th District of California and the Committee have been 
     reviewing these materials and have all the information they 
     need regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the 
     information they need to make a judgment concerning those 
     votes; and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over 9 
     months of review and investigation failed to produce or 
     present any credible evidence sufficient to change the 
     outcome of the election of Congresswoman Sanchez and is now, 
     in place of producing such credible evidence, pursuing never 
     ending and unsubstantiated areas of review; and
       Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has after nearly 1 year 
     not shown or provided any credible evidence sufficient to 
     demonstrate that the outcome of the election is other than 
     Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight should complete 
     its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end 
     and now therefore be it:
       Resolved, that unless the Committee on House Oversight has 
     sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, 
     the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed 
     upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.

                              {time}  1800

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). Under rule IX, a resolution 
offered from the floor by a Member other than the majority leader or 
the minority leader as a question of privileges of the House has 
immediate precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 
legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
  Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] will appear in the Record at 
this point.
  The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution 
constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at 
the time designated for consideration of the resolution.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Am I to understand the Speaker to say that by Thursday 
of this week that this resolution would be brought to the floor?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Speaker will inform the gentleman of the 
scheduling within that time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Further parliamentary inquiry, is it my understanding 
that it can be no later than Thursday of this week, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. And further parliamentary inquiry. What notice will the 
Member receive that the resolution will be forthcoming?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The leadership will give timely notice to 
the gentleman.
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)

[[Page H9582]]

   Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of 
                        Privileges of the House

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby 
give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a 
question of the privileges of the House.
  The form of the resolution is as follows:
       Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of 
     election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th 
     District of California by the Secretary of State of 
     California and was seated by the U.S. House of 
     Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
       Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the 
     Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; 
     and
       Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in 
     Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County, 
     California and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
       Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been 
     largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting 
     from a business, rather than a resident address; underage 
     voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number 
     of individuals voting from the same address. It was found 
     that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks 
     and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal 
     residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of 
     the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different 
     individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age; 
     and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued 
     unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service to compare their records with Orange County voter 
     registration records, the first time in any election in the 
     history of the United States that the INS has been asked by 
     Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
       Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request 
     and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual 
     check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing 
     supplemental information on that manual check to the 
     Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the 
     records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on 
     February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records 
     pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and
       Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th District of California and the Committee have been 
     reviewing these materials and has all the information it 
     needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the 
     information it needs to make judgments concerning those 
     votes; and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over 
     nine months of review and investigation failed to present 
     credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of 
     Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and 
     unsubstantiated areas of review; and
       Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided 
     credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other 
     than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
       Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete 
     its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has 
     sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, 
     the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed 
     upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair's previous 
announcement will appear in the Record at this point.
  There was no objection.
  The text of the Chair's prior announcement is as follows:
       Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a 
     Member other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader 
     as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate 
     precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within two 
     legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
       Pending that designation, the form of the resolution 
     noticed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] will 
     appear in the Record at this point.
       The Chair will not at this point determine whether the 
     resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That 
     determination will be made at the time designated for 
     consideration of the resolution.
  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)


   Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of 
                        Privileges of the House

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby 
give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a 
question of the privileges of the House.
  The form of the resolution is as follows:
       Whereas, Loretta Sanchez has been duly elected to represent 
     the 46th District of California; and
       Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the 
     Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; 
     and
       Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th District of California met only on February 26, 1997 in 
     Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County, 
     California, and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
       Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been 
     largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting 
     from a business, rather than a resident address; underage 
     voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number 
     of individuals voting from the same address. It was found 
     that going from the same address included a Marines barracks 
     and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal 
     residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of 
     the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different 
     individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age; 
     and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued 
     unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service to compare their records with Orange County voter 
     registration records, the first time in any election in the 
     history of the United States that the INS has been asked by 
     Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
       Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request 
     and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual 
     check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing 
     supplemental information on that manual check to the 
     Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the 
     records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on 
     February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records 
     pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and
       Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are 
     now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials 
     already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of 
     State of California; and
       Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th District of California and the Committee have been 
     reviewing these materials and has all the information it 
     needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the 
     information it needs to make judgments concerning those 
     votes; and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over 
     nine months of review and investigation failed to present 
     credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of 
     Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and 
     unsubstantiated areas of review; and
       Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided 
     credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other 
     than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
       Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete 
     its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has 
     sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, 
     the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed 
     upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair's previous 
announcement will be inserted in the Record at this point.
  There was no objection.
  The text of the Chair's prior announcement is as follows:

       Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a 
     Member other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader 
     as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate 
     precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within two 
     legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
       Pending that designation, the form of the resolution 
     noticed by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. 
     Norton] will appear in the Record at this point.
       The Chair will not at this point determine whether the 
     resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That 
     determination will be made at the time designated for 
     consideration of the resolution.

  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)


   Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of 
                        Privileges of the House

  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby 
give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a 
question of the privileges of the House.
  The form of the resolution is as follows:

       Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of 
     election as the elected Member of Congress from the 46th 
     District of California and was seated by the U.S. House of 
     Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
       Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the 
     Clerk of House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; and
       Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th District of California met on February 26th, 1977 in 
     Washington, D.C. on April 19th, 1997 in Orange County, 
     California, and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
       Whereas the Committee on the House Oversight has issued 
     unprecedented

[[Page H9583]]

     subpeoneas to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to 
     compare their records with Orange County voter registration 
     records, the first time in any election in the history of the 
     United States that the INS has been asked by Congress to 
     verify the citizenship of voters; and
       Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request 
     and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual 
     check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing 
     supplemental information on that manual check to the 
     Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over 
     nine months of review and investigation failed to present 
     credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of 
     Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursing never ending and 
     unsubstantiated areas or review; and
       Whereas, the Committee on the House Oversight should 
     complete its review of this matter and bring the matter 
     forward for the House of Representatives to vote upon: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has 
     sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, 
     the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed 
     upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair's previous 
announcement will appear in the Record at this point.
  There was no objection.
  The text of the Chair's prior announcement is as follows:
       Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a 
     Member other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader 
     as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate 
     precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within two 
     legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
       Pending that designation, the form of the resolution 
     noticed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] will 
     appear in the Record at this point.
       The Chair will not at this point determine whether the 
     resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That 
     determination will be made at the time designated for 
     consideration of the resolution.

  (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to speak out of 
order.)


   Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of 
                        Privileges of the House

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I 
hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a 
question of the privileges of the House.
  The form of the resolution is as follows:

       Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of 
     election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th 
     District of California by the Secretary of State of 
     California and was seated by the U.S. House of 
     Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
       Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the 
     Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; 
     and
       Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th District of California has met only on February 26, 1997 
     in Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County, 
     California, and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and
       Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been 
     largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting 
     from a business, rather than a resident address; underage 
     voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number 
     of individuals voting from the same address. It was found 
     that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks 
     and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal 
     residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of 
     the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different 
     individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age; 
     and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued 
     unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and naturalization 
     Service to compare their records with Orange County voter 
     registration records, the first time in any election in the 
     history of the United States that the INS has been asked by 
     Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
       Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request 
     and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual 
     check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing 
     supplemental information on that manual check to the 
     Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and
       Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are 
     now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials 
     already in the Committees possession by the Secretary of 
     State of California; and
       Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th District of California and the Committee have been 
     reviewing these materials and has all the information it 
     needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the 
     information it needs to make judgments concerning those 
     votes; and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over 
     nine months of review and investigation failed to present 
     credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of 
     Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and 
     unsubstantiated areas of review; and
       Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided 
     credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other 
     than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
       Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete 
     its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end: 
     Now, there, be it
       Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has 
     sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, 
     the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed 
     upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair's previous 
announcement will appear in the Record at this point.
  There was no objection.
  The text of the Chair's prior announcement is as follows:

       Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a 
     Member other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader 
     as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate 
     precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within two 
     legislative days after the resolution is properly notice.
       Pending that designation, the form of the resolution 
     noticed by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-
     Allard] will appear in the Record at this point.
       The Chair will not at this point determine whether the 
     resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That 
     determination will be made at the time designated for 
     consideration of the resolution.

                              {time}  1815

  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Hooley of Oregon was allowed to speak out 
of order.)


   Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of 
                        Privileges of the House

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I 
hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a 
question of the privileges of the House.
  The form of the resolution is as follows:

       Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of 
     election as a duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th 
     District of California and was seated by the U.S. House of 
     Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
       Whereas a Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the 
     Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; 
     and
       Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in 
     Washington, D.C., on April 19, 1997 in Orange County, 
     California, and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C., and
       Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been 
     largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting 
     from a business, rather than a resident address; underage 
     voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number 
     of individuals voting from the same address. It was found 
     that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks 
     and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal 
     residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of 
     the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different 
     individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age; 
     and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued 
     unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service to compare their records with Orange County voter 
     registration records, the first time in any election in the 
     history of the United States that the INS has been asked by 
     Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
       Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request 
     and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual 
     check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing 
     supplemental information on that manual check to the 
     Committee on House Oversight for over 5 months; and
       Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are 
     now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials 
     already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of 
     State of California; and
       Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th District of California and the Committee have been 
     reviewing these materials and has all the information it 
     needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the 
     information it needs to make judgments concerning these 
     votes; and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over 
     nine months of review and investigation failed to present 
     credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of 
     Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and 
     unsubstantiated areas of review; and
       Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided 
     credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other 
     than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
       Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete 
     its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end 
     and now therefore be it;

[[Page H9584]]

       Resolved, that unless the Committee on House Oversight has 
     sooner reported a recommendation for its disposition, the 
     contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed upon 
     the expiration of October 31, 1997.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair's previous 
announcement will appear in the Record at this point.
  There was no objection.
  The text of the Chair's prior announcement is as follows:

       Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a 
     Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader 
     as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate 
     precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 
     legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
       Pending that designation, the form of the resolution 
     noticed by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley] will 
     appear in the Record at this point.
       The Chair will not at this point determine whether the 
     resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That 
     determination will be made at the time designated for 
     consideration of the resolution.

  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Waters was allowed to speak out of order.)


   Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of 
                        Privileges of the House

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby 
give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a 
question of the privileges of the House.
  The form of the resolution is as follows:

       Whereas, a contested election contest has been pending 
     between Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez and Mr. Robert Dornan 
     since December 26, 1997; and
       Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th District of California has only met on February 26, 1997 
     and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C., and on April 19, 
     1997 in Orange County, California; and
       Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been 
     largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting 
     from a business rather than a residence address; underage 
     voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number 
     of individuals voting from the same address. It was found 
     that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks 
     and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal 
     residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of 
     the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different 
     individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age; 
     and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued 
     unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service to compare their records with Orange County voter 
     registration records, the first time in any election in the 
     history of the United States that the INS has been asked by 
     Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
       Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request 
     and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual 
     check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing 
     supplemental information on that manual check to the 
     Committee on House Oversight for over 5 months; and
       Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are 
     now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials 
     already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of 
     State of California; and
       Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th District of California and the Committee have been 
     reviewing these materials and has all the information it 
     needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the 
     information it needs to make judgments concerning those 
     votes; and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over 9 
     months of review and investigation failed to present credible 
     evidence to change the outcome of the election of 
     Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and 
     unsubstantiated areas of review; and
       Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided 
     credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other 
     than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
       Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete 
     its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end 
     and now therefore be it;
       Resolved, that unless the Committee on House Oversight has 
     sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, 
     the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed 
     upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair's previous 
announcement will appear in the Record at this point.
  There was no objection.
  The text of the Chair's prior announcement is as follows:

       Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a 
     Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader 
     as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate 
     precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 
     legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
       Pending that designation, the form of the resolution 
     noticed by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] will 
     appear in the Record at this point.
       The Chair will not at this point determine whether the 
     resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That 
     determination will be made at the time designated for 
     consideration of the resolution.

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dooley of California was allowed to speak 
out of order.)


   Announcement of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising Question of 
                        Privileges of the House

  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule 
IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which 
raises a question of the privileges of the House.
  The form of the resolution is as follows:

       Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of 
     election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th 
     District of California by the Secretary of State of 
     California and was seated by the U.S. House of 
     Representatives on January 7, 1997; and
       Whereas a Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the 
     Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; 
     and
       Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th District of California has met only three times; and
       Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been 
     largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting 
     from a business, rather than a resident address; underage 
     voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number 
     of individuals voting from the same address. It was found 
     that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks 
     and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were the 
     legal residences of the individuals, including the zoo keeper 
     of the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different 
     individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age; 
     and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued 
     unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service to compare their records with Orange County voter 
     registration records, the first time in any election in the 
     history of the United States that the INS has been asked by 
     Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and
       Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request 
     and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual 
     check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing 
     supplemental information on that manual check to the 
     Committee on House Oversight for over 5 months; and
       Whereas some Members of the House Oversight Committee are 
     now seeking a duplicate and dilatory review of materials 
     already in the Committee's possession by the Secretary of 
     State of California; and
       Whereas the Task force on the Contested Election in the 
     46th District of California and the Committee have been 
     reviewing these materials and has all the information it 
     needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the 
     information it needs to make judgment concerning those votes; 
     and
       Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over 9 
     months of review and investigation failed to present credible 
     evidence to change the outcome of the election of 
     Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and 
     unsubstantiated areas of review; and
       Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided 
     credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other 
     than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and
       Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete 
     its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end 
     and now therefore be it;
       Resolved, that unless the Committee on House Oversight has 
     sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, 
     the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed 
     upon the expiration of October 31, 1997.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair's previous 
announcement will appear in the Record at this point.
  There was no objection.
  The text of the Chair's prior announcement is as follows:

       Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a 
     Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader 
     as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate 
     precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 
     legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
       Pending that designation, the form of the resolution 
     noticed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley] will 
     appear in the Record at this point.
       The Chair will not at this point determine whether the 
     resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That 
     determination will be made at the time designated for 
     consideration of the resolution.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Westerville, Ohio [Mr. Kasich], who a number of years ago came to this 
body. He has since proven himself to be one

[[Page H9585]]

of the most respected and distinguished Members. As a matter of fact, I 
can only recall disagreeing with him one time. It was on a little 
airplane, but beyond that, he has always been right.
  Mr. KASICH. A little airplane that cost $2 billion apiece, but 
nevertheless.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed the conferees did not reflect the 
clear will of the House in the conference report's provision dealing 
with Bosnia. The mission of the U.S. Armed Forces in Bosnia has been 
characterized by a failure to define achievable objectives, a 
unilateral shifting of deadlines and a refusal on the part of the 
administration to clearly explain its goals either to Congress or to 
the public at large. If the American people are to have any confidence 
in our national security policy, that policy must be honestly and 
forthrightly presented to them.
  I am troubled by the unclear focus of the mission and the apparent 
lack of an exit strategy. The underlying premise of the original 
mission was to separate the warring parties, then turn the peacekeeping 
role over to our European allies within one year.
  In November of 1995, in his address to the Nation regarding our 
proposed commitment of forces to Bosnia, President Clinton said that 
our participation should last about one year. However, in November of 
1996, the President announced that our military presence in Bosnia 
would be extended for another 18 months, until June 30 of 1998.
  Secretary of Defense Cohen has emphatically stated his understanding 
that U.S. forces would be withdrawn by the end of June of 1998. 
However, on September 23 of this year, National Security Adviser Berger 
cast serious doubt on this second deadline.
  It was against this background on June 24, 1997, that the House voted 
in overwhelming numbers to prohibit funding for U.S. ground forces in 
Bosnia after June of 1998. This strong show of support for setting a 
date certain for withdrawal came just after the House rejected an 
amendment to withdraw our forces by December 31, 1997. Together, these 
votes demonstrated the consensus in the House that we should wrap up 
our Bosnia deployment.
  The conferees' decision to abandon a firm withdrawal date in favor of 
language merely requiring presidential certifications for the Bosnia 
mission to be extended for an indefinite period of time after June 30, 
1998; in other words, there is no limit, we have accepted a much weaker 
position, not only weakens the House position but it offers further 
scope for yet another extension of the Bosnia mission.
  It is a generally accepted premise that the President is the sole 
organ of the Federal Government in the field of international relations 
and that Congress generally accepts a broad scope for independent 
executive action in international affairs.

                              {time}  1830

  But Congress has long been concerned about U.S. military commitments 
and security arrangements that have been made by the President 
unilaterally, without the consent or full knowledge of Congress.
  Throughout our Nation's history, prior Presidents have sought 
Congressional consent for extended deployments of the United States 
Armed Forces overseas, either through declarations of war or by acts of 
Congress authorizing specific deployment.
  Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to 
declare war. These powers were explicitly given to Congress in order to 
prevent the President, in his role as Commander in Chief, from using 
the Armed Forces for purposes that have not been approved of by 
Congress on behalf of the national security interests of the American 
people.
  Nowhere in the Constitution is the President empowered to deploy U.S. 
Armed Forces for war or beyond our borders without the consent of 
Congress. It is generally agreed, however, that situations of imminent 
or immediate danger to American life or property may arise that would 
give the President the power to act without previous Congressional 
consent. But the extended deployment to Bosnia hardly qualifies for 
such unilateral action.
  President Clinton, by ordering the deployment of our military into 
Bosnia without the consent of Congress, has assumed that the making of 
war is the prerogative of the executive branch. But the raising, 
maintenance, governance and regulation of the deployment and use of the 
Armed Forces of the United States is the prerogative of Congress.
  Not only does the conferees' weakening of the House position undercut 
Congress' legitimate authority to work its will on a vital foreign 
policy matter that involves the commitment of substantial U.S. military 
forces, it comes precisely at a time when the international 
organization, the international force, is clearly drifting deeper into 
the quagmire in the Balkans, rather than preparing to disengage from 
it.
  During the last three months, that force has become more and more 
entangled in efforts at nation building, a flawed objective as well as 
an inappropriate use of combat forces. For example, those troops are 
increasingly becoming involved in Serbian interparty politics, the 
takeover of police stations and the censorship of television 
broadcasts. These recent actions compromise our status as neutral 
peacekeepers and jeopardize the primary mission of separating the 
former belligerents. More important, they endanger American lives in 
much the same way as our poorly-thought-out policies in Somalia and 
Lebanon.
  The administration has compounded the difficulty of a confused, 
evolving mission in Bosnia by the lack of a clear exit strategy. When 
Henry Shelton testified in the Senate during his confirmation hearing, 
General Shelton admitted he had not been informed about the exit 
strategy for Bosnia. It is likely that to the extent an exit strategy 
exists, it is so firmly tied to hazily defined future political events 
that there is always sufficient reason to leave U.S. troops in place.
  Finally, our mission in Bosnia raises troubling questions about 
allied burden sharing. The bottom line on the burden sharing is this is 
in the vital interests of Europe, but is not really the vital direct 
interests of the United States, and it does not follow that U.S. ground 
troops must be tied up there for years. If the Europeans truly have the 
will to maintain peace in Bosnia, they will find a way, and the 
administration should press the Europeans to begin planning now.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, if the President of the United 
States attempts to extend the mission in Bosnia beyond June of 1998, I 
will come to the House floor and do everything I can to work with the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules to end that deployment. This is a 
mission with no clear objective, no exit strategy, and no reasonable 
goal of accomplishing a mission. Frankly, it is difficult to know what 
the mission is because the administration has never defined it. This is 
a prescription for failure and a risking of the lives of U.S. men and 
women in Bosnia. The President should get us out.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
for the purposes of agreeing with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
and commending him for his statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I am the vice president of the North Atlantic Assembly, 
the parliamentary arm of NATO. At a NATO meeting just 2 weeks ago, I 
informed our 15 other NATO allies that by June 1998, we will have been 
in Bosnia for 2\1/2\ years; that this was not going to turn into 
another Vietnam; that we were not going to continue to leave our troops 
there indefinitely at great expense to our military budget; and that 
the NATO allies had better begin to make plans to solve a European 
problem, a European problem being a civil strife within sovereign 
boundaries of a country, and that NATO should not be there trying to 
solve civil matters, trying to be peacemakers.
  So I just wanted to commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for 
his statement. We will speak to this further. We have spoken to it 
twice already on the floor of this Congress, and we will speak to it 
again in the months to come, that those troops must come out of there 
no later than June 1998.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums], the ranking member on the Committee on 
National Security.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

[[Page H9586]]

  Mr. Speaker, first, this is a very straightforward rule, one hour of 
debate on the conference report. I have no problem with the rule. 
Secondly, I would like to say to my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] that there is a different perspective 
and point of view on Bosnia. This obviously is not the time nor the 
place for us to engage in substantive debate on that matter.
  With the balance of the time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to, for the 
purposes of colloquy, engage the distinguished gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Hefley].
  There is considerable concern, I would like to say to my 
distinguished colleague from Colorado, at both the local level and the 
Federal level, that the environmental cleanup proposed by the 
Department of the Army for the Presidio in San Francisco will not meet 
the environmental health and safety criteria appropriate for a national 
park.
  The Presidio, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is the only base closure to 
convert to national park use, and it is important for the Army to meet 
the cleanup levels set by the National Park Service.
  I would encourage the committee to work with the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] in urging the Department of the Army to 
expedite its environmental remediation efforts at the Presidio. This is 
a clear case where there should be an accelerated cleanup that meets 
the requirements of the national park to ensure the public health and 
safety of the millions of visitors there.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns that my colleague has 
raised and will work with the committee, and with him, and with the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] to ensure an appropriate 
cleanup for the Presidio.
  We have this problem with a number of bases around the country, but I 
think this one has a unique factor connected with it. I think the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has pointed out what that 
factor is, and that is that this is a national park. We want to move 
forward in creating this, and, if we are going to do this, we want it 
to be a good national park. We cannot do that without the cleanup.
  I share the gentleman's concerns and will do everything I can to work 
with him and solve this problem.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his thoughtful remarks and response. I would just like to further 
for the record make the following comment.
  Significant philanthropic efforts are under way at the Presidio where 
sizeable pledges have been made to the National Park Service. In 
addition to the potential threat to philanthropic interests, it would 
be difficult for the Presidio Trust to meet its self-sufficiency 
requirements without a timely and thorough cleanup of the Presidio. 
Securing the leases necessary to generate revenues is essential to the 
success of the trust, and can only be accomplished if the cleanup is 
timely and thorough.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado for his final 
remarks.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding further.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has raised very important concerns, ones 
which have also been voiced by the Committee on Appropriations in two 
of its measures. We will work together to resolve these questions to 
ensure the success of the Presidio.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think this has been 
an important colloquy.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Rodriguez], a member of the committee.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that this is no 
compromise. It is like someone stealing your wallet and then offering 
only to return a few dollars. The bottom line is, this is not an 
appropriate agreement we can deal with.
  The language in this bill prevents fair competition for Defense 
Department maintenance work. This means higher costs for U.S. 
taxpayers. I repeat, the depot language in this bill will cost the 
taxpayers money.
  We just completed a competition for work done at Kelly Air Force 
Base. Warner-Robins Air Force Base in Georgia won the contract, at a 
savings of $190 million. The language in this bill would prevent us 
from seeing such savings in the future.
  Without the ability to conduct a fair public-private competition, the 
Air Force and Defense Department will not be able to fund the 
modernization program needed for our military to remain superior. 
Whether one thinks we should be spending additional money or not for 
national defense, everyone should agree that we should use every dollar 
most effectively.
  The language in this bill is to the contrary. It makes public-private 
competition next to impossible. Supporters of the language freely and 
proudly admit that it will make it too expensive and too restrictive 
for the private contractors to bid on depot work at San Antonio and 
Sacramento. The deck is stacked against free competition and against 
the U.S. taxpayer and military modernization.
  It should come as no surprise that the most punitive restrictions 
fall on the competition workload at the closing depots in San Antonio 
and Sacramento. Private bidders must comply with arcane rules not 
imposed on the public bidders, so we do not have a level playing field.
  The Depot Caucus believes this work should go to the depots, 
regardless of cost and regardless of what the Defense Department needs. 
They are protecting their home turf, and I respect that, but it is also 
bad policy, and this is not what we should be supporting. It puts our 
troops at a disadvantage.
  The Secretary of Defense and his military commanders need the 
flexibility on the current law to modernize. To do so, they need to 
have the ability to take the best and most appropriate public or 
private bid.
  Let us not tie the Pentagon's hands with a requirement on design, 
because, at the end, it is only to protect the existing bases that are 
there now. It will be at the expense of modernization and at the 
expense of readiness. A vote against the defense authorization bill is 
a vote for competition and for the future of our military readiness.
  Mr. Speaker, there is also evidence in the newspapers by some 
individuals indicating that on the contracts that are out there, 
``Contractors will have to include in their bids millions of dollars of 
costs that were previously required.'' I think this will make it 
unlikely that the contractor will even bid.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me interrupt this debate to yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss] 
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

                          ____________________