[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 64 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3463-H3478]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 435 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 435

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3616) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 1999 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal 
     year 1999, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on National Security. After general 
     debate the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. 
     No further consideration of the bill shall be in order except 
     pursuant to subsequent order of the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), a very 
strong supporter of the defense budget, pending which I yield myself 
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, 
all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 435 is a rule providing for general 
debate consideration of H.R. 3616, the Fiscal 1999 Defense 
Authorization Bill. The rule waives points of order against 
consideration of the bill and provides two hours of general debate 
only, which we will take up in just a few minutes. Further 
consideration of the bill will be governed by a rule that the Committee 
on Rules will report out later today.
  This rule is necessary simply to get the ball rolling on this 
massive, complex bill which always requires a great deal of floor time.
  Mr. Speaker, the annual defense authorization bill is without 
question one of the most important bills we consider in this body each 
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 bill is all about here tonight. As usual, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) and their staffs have done outstanding work, and I commend 
them and urge support for the rule so that they can get on with their 
business tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely imperative that this bill contain 
adequate funding for our military personnel who are right now out in 
the field standing vigilant on behalf of all Americans all over this 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that this bill set out the policies 
which are consistent with and seek to maintain the unique warrior 
culture of our military, and that is exactly what it is, it is a 
warrior culture and that is what it has to be, for without that we 
cannot win wars, and that is what militaries are for. Some people seem 
to have forgotten that over the course of years.
  Mr. Speaker, to the best extent possible this bill does all of that 
within the budget restrictions we have to live by. I congratulate and I 
commend both the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and again their staffs for their 
outstanding work on behalf of military preparedness.
  At $270.8 billion, this bill once again adds money to the President's 
annually inadequate defense budget request. Very importantly, the bill 
provides for the first time in 13 years an inflation adjusted increase 
in procurement spending. That means in being able to purchase the 
hardware that is going to give the best state of the art to young men 
and women that serve in the military today. This is exceedingly 
important.
  This account provides for the weapons and equipment that we send our 
young men into battle with and it has been cut by nearly 70 percent 
since 1985. I will bet Members did not know that, did they? It is well 
past time that we reversed this trend.
  These accounts contain adequate funding for the President's request 
of $36 billion for research and development. Again, if we do not have 
the research and development, we will not have that state of the art 
equipment that will give our men and women the best. 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, and the 
next generation of aircraft carriers and submarines. These

[[Page H3464]]

accounts also contain funding to bring us one step closer to developing 
and deploying defenses against ballistic missiles, something we may 
need even sooner if certain U.S. businesses continue to assist China 
missile programs with a wink and a nod from the Clinton administration, 
and we will be debating this at length during this upcoming debate.
  This bill also contains, very importantly, a 3.6 percent pay raise 
for our military personnel and adds significant funding increases for 
the barracks, for the family housing and for child care centers. We 
have to keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that when I served with some of my 
colleagues in the Marine Corps more than 45 years ago, almost all of 
us, noncommissioned officers, as I was, were single. Almost all of the 
commissioned officers were single under the grade of colonel. Today 
that is absolutely reversed. Therefore, it is imperative that we do 
provide housing and child care centers for our military in order to 
keep the kind of personnel that we want in the military.
  Despite all of these excellent provisions in this bill, Mr. Speaker, 
let me go on the record once again as I have for several years now. We 
continue to provide inadequate, yes, I will repeat, inadequate funds 
for this Nation's defenses. Despite our additions to the President's 
request, this bill will represent the 14th straight year of inflation 
adjusted cuts to this budget. Our military is vastly smaller and it is 
older than during Desert Storm and, God forbid, if we had to go back 
and have the same kind of rearm go that we had in Desert Storm, we 
could not do it today and that means the men and women that we put in 
danger's way are going to be very, in very serious condition. Most 
experts agree, not just with me, that such a mission would simply be 
impossible today.

                              {time}  2130

  Worse, this smaller force is being asked to do more and more and more 
and more by the administration. We are bogged down in a fanciful 
nation-building mission in Bosnia. We also have a seemingly never-
ending mission in Iraq.
  And I support the Iraq mission, but my point is that our military is 
stretched almost to its breaking point, my colleagues. Our men and 
women are being asked to do too much, with less training, less support 
and with older and older equipment.
  The predictable results are that the recruiters are unable to meet 
the quotas. If my colleagues do not believe it, they should go back 
into their districts and go and sit down with the Marine Corps and the 
Navy and the Army and the Air Force recruiters, and they will tell my 
colleagues that they are having trouble recruiting a real cross-section 
of America today.
  Air Force and Navy pilots are resigning in droves today because they 
do not think that the career is there. Are they going to be able to 
advance up the promotion ladder? And under today's military level of 
funding, the answer is no. They know they will be cashiered out at an 
early age and, therefore, how can they afford to stay in the military 
and still support their families? They cannot. And that is why we have 
to pass this bill today.
  All this, as the world just gets more and more dangerous. We have a 
nuclear arms race going on right now in South Asia, aided and abetted 
by the increasingly aggressive Communist China, and we will debate that 
at length for about 4 hours tomorrow morning. The Middle East peace 
process is in deep trouble. Saddam Hussein, according to the U.N. 
weapons inspectors, continues to conceal his weapons of mass 
destruction capabilities, and North Korea remains as dangerous as ever.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, history has not ended and conflict among 
nations has not ceased, nor will it in my colleagues' lifetime and 
mine. But in order to deter conflict and to prepare for all 
contingencies, we need the strongest, best trained, best equipped and 
most ready military force that we can possibly have. We have had that, 
but have taken ourselves to the verge of squandering it over the past 
several years with these budget cuts.
  For several years running, the Committee on National Security and the 
Committee on Appropriations have made valiant and worthy attempts to 
correct this increasingly dangerous situation by adding to the 
President's budget request. But it has not been enough. Mr. Speaker, 
somehow we are all going to have to figure out a way to get more money 
allocated to defense before we come to regret what we have done here on 
this floor over the years.
  Despite all this, I nonetheless urge support of the rule and this 
bill as we debate through this week. 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. Floyd Spence), the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ike Skelton), and the Committee on 
National Security and their staff for the excellent work on bringing 
this bill to the floor.
  Let us pass this rule quickly, get on to the general debate, and then 
get into the amendment process tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial rule which merely facilitates 
the work of the House. The Committee on Rules has also reported a rule 
which provides for the consideration of the amendments to the 
Department of Defense authorization for fiscal year 1999.
  However, as in the years past, the Committee on Rules has recommended 
this separate rule providing for general debate on the DOD 
authorization in anticipation of another rule which will set the terms 
of debate on the many substantive issues relating to the operations of 
the Department of Defense.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a matter related to the consideration of this 
rule by the Committee on Rules I would like to call to the attention of 
the House. Last Thursday afternoon, just minutes before the Committee 
on Rules convened to consider this noncontroversial rule, the chairman 
announced from the floor that the committee would be considering two 
resolutions which had not been previously noticed to the committee. 
This chairman said these matters were being brought to the Committee on 
Rules solely because the Democratic leadership had earlier that day 
offered a privileged resolution relating to the conduct of the 
investigation on campaign finance by the chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. Speaker, I only raise this issue because these matters were 
brought to the Committee on Rules with no notice to the Democratic 
members. The chairman of the committee, my friend the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Solomon), did call the ranking member to inform him of 
his decision to bring these matters before the committee as emergency 
matters, but he did so only moments before going to the floor to make 
this general announcement, during which he said the committee was due 
to meet in 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not dispute the authority of the chairman to bring 
those matters that he chooses before the committee for its 
consideration. What I would merely like to point out is that the manner 
in which these resolution were brought to the committee only 
perpetuates a problem he is seeking to remedy.
  That being said, Mr. Speaker, let me add that I have no objection to 
this rule providing for general debate on the authorization for the 
programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1999, and I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) be allowed to manage the rest of the time 
on this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and of this 
rule as the minimum support necessary to meet our basic security 
requirements around the world. I sincerely hope that over the year we 
can begin to debate our responsibility in solving the many challenges 
facing our military.

[[Page H3465]]

  With the passage of this bill, the Congress has joined the President 
in responsibility for underfunding the critical functions of national 
security. The duty now rests squarely with the Congress to provide 
sufficient resources for a strong and ready military force capable of 
meeting our global responsibilities while keeping faith with the men 
and women in uniform who sacrifice so much for this country.
  I had hoped the President would lead on this issue, laying out the 
case for the American people that it is still a dangerous world and the 
United States must be prepared to lead and to act whenever our 
interests are at stake. I am not hopeful that he will.
  The revelations of China's influence in White House policy and the 
very troubling transfer of missile technology to the Chinese military 
have gravely damaged our national security and may have ignited a new 
wave of proliferation and arms race throughout Asia. Meanwhile, at 
home, the President continues to put campaign promises and jobs in 
California ahead of complying with the base closure law and hundreds of 
millions of dollars in savings represented by the consolidation of 
excess capacity.
  I do not expect too much leadership from a White House that promised 
a 1-year mission to Bosnia for a cost of $1 billion, and now our 
military is stuck in an endless stalemate that will cost well over $10 
billion and even more in eroded military readiness.
  That leaves it to us. It is the principal job of the Congress to 
provide for the national defense. We do not need a bigger Department of 
Defense, but we do need a more modern one with adequately supported 
professionals and clearly defined goals.
  After 14 straight years of real decline in defense spending, it is 
long past time for a change. If we are to remain great and free and 
respected around the world, we need the courage and foresight to 
provide for a strong and ready force. George Washington warned that the 
only way to ensure peace was to be prepared for war. I am afraid today 
that we are prepared for neither.
  The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CBO tell us the national military 
strategy is underfunded by nearly $15 billion per year for the next 6 
years. At less than 1 percent of the Federal budget and one-tenth 
percent of our GDP, I ask each of my colleagues, if we cannot afford 
this investment now, when times are good and we have the first balanced 
budget in a generation, when will we afford it? Let us commit what 
modest investment in national defense will be included with debt 
reduction and family tax cuts as we reprioritize Federal expenditures 
under a budget surplus.
  Our military readiness is already broken. Retention and recruiting 
are at nearly all-time lows. Morale is falling. The only thing holding 
our military together is the tireless effort, dedication, patriotism 
and self-sacrifice of the men and women who volunteer to serve in our 
armed forces. They can only bear this burden so long before health, 
safety and family fall victim to relentless operational tempo.
  I salute these people and thank them for all they do. We owe it to 
them to show our full support before we ask the last full measure of 
their devotion. I hope we in the Congress can show that kind of 
leadership.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I think it is unfortunate that we are having and will have the debate 
tonight on the largest single expenditure of the government of the 
United States, late at night with virtually no Members in attendance.
  Further, it is unfortunate that as the bill moved forward, that there 
were two copies of the report on this bill available in the anteroom of 
the committee for the 435 Members of the Congress. If any Member wanted 
to attempt to develop an amendment, they could have gone down and sat 
in the anteroom and tried to pore through the hundreds of pages of the 
bill, because the amendments were due on Thursday and the reports were 
issued to the Members' offices today. I think that is equally 
unfortunate.
  And what we can expect from that is that many vital issues will not 
get the scrutiny that they should have on the floor of the House of 
Representatives or in the Congress.
  Procurement reform. No one can argue that the procurement system of 
the Pentagon works well. The scandals are still there. If it is not 
toilet seats, it is screwdrivers. If it is not screwdrivers, it is 
fasteners. If it is not fasteners, it is whole weapon systems that do 
not work.
  These things should be adequately reviewed. But profits come before 
efficiency, or even come before national security, and certainly come 
before the troops.
  We are not going to address effectively in this bill the fact that 
15,000 enlisted families are eligible for food stamps in the military. 
The small across-the-board raise given in this bill is not going to 
boost those families up above that level.
  We are not going to effectively address the much more cost-effective 
alternative of the National Guard as an alternative to full-time 
standing military for the defense needs of our country. We are still 
going to short the National Guard in this bill.
  People say, well, there is not enough money to go around. Well, the 
Pentagon is spending a lot of time pushing some other big programs that 
are of dubious value, another generation of attack submarines. When the 
last one, Seawolf, was launched, a senior chief said, ``Now, if we 
could just find somebody to fight with.'' Well, now we are going to 
develop another generation of submarines, even more sophisticated, even 
though there are none as sophisticated as the last ones we are still 
launching.
  We are still going to invest $3.8 billion in ballistic missile 
defense, some of it oriented toward theater defense to defend our 
troops, but some of it still following the fantasy launched by Star 
Wars $50 billion ago with not yet one successful test. There will be no 
amendments on that issue here on the floor of the House. There will be 
very little discussion of that issue here on the floor of the House.
  These are things that deserve scrutiny. These are things that should 
have amendments oriented toward them. But the process that was adopted 
here, two reports available, amendments due by Thursday, reports issued 
today to Members, did not lead to that and the debate late at night 
does not either.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Oregon, I know he is getting ready to leave the 
Chamber, but I think he needs to be aware, because he is probably going 
to be embarrassed by the fact that he was not, that hundreds of copies 
of the committee print were available a week ago Monday. Last Monday a 
week.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I will not yield.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. McINNIS. I have not yielded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) 
has the time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. That is an inaccurate statement.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask for order on the floor. I have time 
on the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) 
has the time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Furthermore, I would advise the gentleman that over 100 
amendments have been filed. So what I would surmise from this is that a 
number of our colleagues have determined that this is a very open 
process. They have taken the time to file over 100 amendments.
  The fact that the gentleman from Oregon neglected to do this or 
neglected to watch the schedule, he should not then come down here on 
the floor and say that this rule is not fair.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, my staff contacted the committee. They were 
told two copies were available in the anteroom. Beyond that, we know 
that the process is preloaded.
  I have just reviewed the list of amendments that are being allowed. 
There is not one single amendment that would cut $1 from any program. 
There is not one single amendment

[[Page H3466]]

being allowed that would review the efficiency or the effectiveness of 
the procurement program.
  This has been going on for years here on the floor of the House. 
Members can take the amendments up there and they will not be allowed 
to talk to them on the floor. The only amendments here on the floor are 
going to be amendments that enhance the spending under this bill.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
once again to correct. I mean the gentleman from Oregon makes it sound 
like there were lots of amendments up there to decrease spending and 
none of them were allowed on the floor.
  Only one amendment was filed, Mr. Speaker. Only one amendment. I 
think we need to show the whole story, show the whole picture here 
before we reflect upon our colleagues some kind of Committee on Rules 
that is theoretically disorderly and not fair. It is eminently fair.
  This rule has had over 100 amendments. We are going to have lots of 
debate in the next few days. And, quite frankly, the gentleman needs to 
be a little more accurate, in my opinion, in regards to the action the 
Committee on Rules has taken.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I also want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman, 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for what I see as a very 
important issue that has been included in this authorization bill, 
which is to extend the national mail order pharmacy program to Medicare 
eligibles.

                              {time}  2145

  While Congress has authorized a mail-order pharmacy program and 
allowed retirees who live near those areas that the bases have been 
designated to be closed, they are allowed to participate, but this has 
left out hundreds of thousands of other brave, retired servicemen and 
women who have continued to be locked out of this process.
  Currently, this program does not include the vast majority of our 
Nation's Medicare-eligible military retirees. That is why last year I 
introduced some legislation, H.R. 1773, to expand the mail-order 
program to all Medicare-eligible military retirees. This measure has 
been supported by both the Air Force Sergeants Association and the Army 
Retirement Council, both of which have worked tirelessly on this issue.
  I would also like to point out that the hard work of one of my 
constituents who serves on one of these committees, Mr. Ebitz, first 
brought this issue to my attention.
  The legislation before us today will require that the DOD submit a 
plan to Congress by March 1, 1999. This plan must provide for a system-
wide redesign of the military mail-order pharmacy system, which 
includes a system-wide drug benefit for all beneficiaries, including 
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries.
  I think the DOD and this Congress have an implied moral commitment to 
provide this care to all military beneficiaries. By supporting the 
expansion of the mail-order program, we can send a clear message that 
the passage of time does not either erase the service of our military 
retirees and what they have given to us nor our Government's obligation 
to their well-being.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
McInnis) has 17 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
has 22 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this 
opportunity to speak against this rule and the rule that will come up 
tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, about $18 billion of our Nation's money, most of it 
coming from the Department of Defense, is spent on the war on drugs. In 
February, to my knowledge, we had a special forces aid team in Colombia 
training the Lance Arrows. I visited that group a week before the Lance 
Arrows were ambushed. Out of 125, I think 18 straggled back. The rest 
were killed or captured.
  We also have Seals down there. We have E-3s flying. We have P-3s 
flying. We have surveillance C-130s, one of which was shot up by the 
Peruvians. An American airman fell to his death I think 11,000 feet out 
of the plane.
  The point that I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that I offered an 
amendment to the Committee on Rules to require all Department of 
Defense employees to be tested for drugs. Because we have some 
Department of Defense employees, particularly our uniformed personnel, 
who are literally putting their lives on the line as we speak. So 
should we not know that all of the people within the Department of 
Defense are pulling for the same team?
  The uniformed military personnel and some civilians are required to 
be drug tested. We know from conversations that have been intercepted 
from the drug lords that they know when the planes are flying, they 
know when the ships are patrolling; and I suspect there are some people 
within the Department of Defense that are giving this information away.
  Is it for money? Is it for drugs? I think we deserve to know. And I 
think the American people deserve a Department of Defense, as a matter 
of fact, the American people deserve a Federal workforce that is drug 
free. And the best way to see to it that that happens is to allow drug 
testing as a condition of employment.
  That is why I must express my deep anger that every single Republican 
member of the Committee on Rules voted against bringing this amendment 
to the floor. I do want to congratulate my Democratic colleagues who 
voted for that. But that is one of the 100 amendments that should have 
been voted on. That is why I will be voting against the rule both 
tonight and tomorrow.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The amendment of the gentleman sounds good. I think the amendment has 
a lot of merit to it. However, this amendment was offered last year. It 
is going to be addressed at the Committee on Government Oversight and 
Reform. Other committees are going to take a look at it. That is a more 
appropriate location.
  I would urge my colleague to go ahead and support the rule. That is 
what is going to allow us some good debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is the rule for general debate only. We will have the 
opportunity tomorrow to consider a rule which will provide for the 
consideration of various amendments. I urge the adoption of this rule, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I also urge that we pass this bill. We are going to have appropriate 
time for general debate this evening. The next few days are going to be 
consumed on the issue of defense. It is absolutely critical.
  I think the good congressman, the gentleman from the State of Utah 
(Mr. Hansen), stated it very well in his remarks. He quoted George 
Washington, ``The best way to be prepared for peace is to be prepared 
for war.''
  I think these are key issues. I think both sides of the aisle have a 
lot of keen interest in seeing that our defense is strong and 
appropriate. And, therefore, I urge the first step in this process, and 
that is passage of the bill. I urge a yes vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Pursuant to House Resolution 
435 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 3616.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) as chairman

[[Page H3467]]

of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Pease) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  2153


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3616) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal year 1999, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Pease (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, on May 6, the Committee on National 
Security reported H.R. 3616 on a bipartisan vote of 50-1. Although this 
kind of support may leave everyone with the impression that all is well 
with our military and that crafting this bill was easy, the truth was 
far different.
  Caught between an international geopolitical environment that 
requires an expansive United States national security strategy and a 
domestic political environment bounded by declining defense budgets 
locked in place by the Balanced Budget Act, the Committee is left to 
figure out how best to manage risk; and there should be no illusions 
about the level of risk associated with the problems that our military 
confronts in carrying out its mission.
  The Joint Chiefs of Staff recently assessed it as moderate to high. 
Thus, our actions in this bill are intended to protect as best we can 
those programs that will help lower the risks to our national security 
interests by improving readiness, enhancing quality of life, and 
increasing the pace of which the rapidly aging equipment is modernized.
  When the fiscal year 1999 defense budget is measured by any of last 
year's Quadrennial Defense Reviews three central requirements for the 
U.S. military, shaping the international environment, preparing for 
uncertain future or responding to the crisis of war, it is inadequate.
  Despite the Nation's extensive national security requirements and the 
administration's heavy use of the military all over the world, the 
fiscal year 1999 defense budget continues for the 14th consecutive year 
a pattern of real decline in defense spending.
  The President's budget request represents a 1.1 percent decline from 
current defense spending levels and is $54 billion short of even 
keeping pace with record low inflation over the next 5 years. The 
spending levels authorized in this bill are almost 40 percent lower 
than those of little more than a decade ago and, in fact, represent the 
lowest level of inflation-adjusted defense spending since before the 
Korean War.
  Earlier this year, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Nation's military 
leaders, testified that their fiscal year 1999 budgets contained 
shortfalls of more than $10 billion. Over the 5-year defense plan, the 
Chiefs of Staff testified that their shortfalls amounted to more than 
$58 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I will submit a summary of the shortfalls identified by 
the Service Chiefs along with my statement.
  Unfortunately, it is not hard to appreciate why the unofficial motto 
of today's military is ``doing more with less.'' Force structure and 
resources continue to decline, while missions continue to increase.
  Since 1987, active duty personnel have been cut by more than 800,000.
  Since 1990, the Army has been reduced from 18 to 10 divisions.
  Since 1988, the Navy has reduced its ships from 565 down to 346.
  Since 1990, the Air Force has reduced its fighter wings from 24 down 
to 12.
  And since 1988, the United States military has closed more than 900 
bases and facilities around the world and 97 bases and facilities here 
at home.
  At the same time, our military is shrinking, operations around the 
world are increasing:
  Between 1960 and 1991, the Army conducted 10 operational events. In 
just the last 7 years, they have conducted 26 such operational events.
  In the 7-year period from 1982 to 1989, the Marine Corps participated 
in 15 contingency operations. However, since 1989 and the fall of the 
Berlin Wall, they have participated in 62 such contingency operations.
  Similarly high operation national tempos are also impacting the Navy 
and the Air Force.
  The threats and challenges America confronts around the world today 
and the resulting pressures they have placed on a still shrinking 
United States military have been underestimateed by the administration 
and by many in Congress. At this critical point in history, the 
mismatch between the Nation's military strategy and the resources 
required to implement it grows larger every day. Consequently, a wide 
range of quality of life, readiness and modernization shortfalls have 
developed. If left unresolved, these shortfalls threaten the viability 
of today's all-volunteer force, risk a return to the hollow military of 
the late 1970s and jeopardize America's ability to effectively protect 
and promote its national interests around the world.
  And these are not just my own personal conclusions. They reflect a 
consensus view held by the Committee on National Security's senior 
leadership on both sides of the aisle.
  Back on April 22, I joined the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
and the committee's senior Republican and Democrat members in publicly 
calling upon the President and the congressional leadership to provide 
for increased defense spending in the face of these worsening military 
shortfalls.
  The letter we signed stated, in part, and I will read from that:

       Despite several years of aggressive Pentagon reform, it is 
     apparent that even if the most optimistic estimates of 
     reform-generated savings materialize, they will fall far 
     short of adequately addressing underfunded quality of life, 
     readiness and modernization requirements as well as the 
     inevitable deployments in the years ahead. Having just 
     concluded our initial oversight hearings on the fiscal 
     year 1999 defense budget request, it is our collective 
     judgment that, short of an unwise retrenchment and 
     overhaul of United States national military strategy, 
     fixing the Nation's long-term defense program will require 
     increased defense spending. Without additional defense 
     resources to reverse the 14-year pattern of spending 
     decline, the military services will be unable to stabilize 
     their shrinking force structures, protect quality of life 
     and readiness and modernize rapidly aging equipment.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. Chairman, I will submit a copy of the complete April 22 
bipartisan letter along with my statement.
  Despite the Committee on National Security's attempt to manage the 
growing risk, we can only make improvements at the margin in the 
absence of additional defense resources. The magnitude of the 
shortfalls is so great that they cannot be eliminated simply through a 
wiser allocation of resources contained in the President's request.
  By reprioritizing the President's request, the committee has provided 
the military services some of the tools they need to better recruit and 
train quality personnel, better train personnel to the highest possible 
standards, and better equip them with advanced military technology.
  At the same time, the committee has tried to provide those who wear 
their uniform and their families with a quality of life more 
commensurate with that of the American citizens they are sworn to 
protect. As a result of these improvements, H.R. 3616 received strong 
bipartisan support in committee and should receive the same in the full 
House.
  Nonetheless, every Member of the House should be deeply troubled that 
14 years of a shrinking military and declining budgets have left the 
world's only superpower running a moderate-to-high risk when it comes 
to protecting and promoting its national security interests around the 
world.
  Mr. Chairman, I will leave discussion of the many specific 
initiatives in the bill to my colleagues on the Committee on National 
Security who have worked very hard since February to get us to

[[Page H3468]]

the point here tonight. However, I would like to recognize the hard 
work of the subcommittee and panel chairman and ranking members. Their 
leadership and bipartisan approach to issues have permitted the 
committee, even without additional resources, to significantly improve 
upon the administration's request in this bill.
  I would specifically like to single out and thank the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the committee's new ranking member, for all of 
his help, support, and hard work. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) is not only a relentless advocate for a strong military 
defense, he works very hard to ensure an open committee process. His 
handiwork is evident in the overwhelming bipartisan support H.R. 3616 
received in the committee.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the staff for their 
enormous dedication and effort. While the staff is usually the first to 
get the blame, they rarely receive any of the credit. All you have to 
do is take a look at the size and complexity of this bill to understand 
the importance of the committee staff to the defense authorization 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the material I referred to is as follows:

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on National Security,

                                   Washington, DC, April 21, 1998.

                      Memorandum for HNSC Members

     From: Chairman Floyd D. Spence

     Re unfunded requirements of the military services

       During the committee's March 12, 1998 hearing, I asked each 
     of the four service chiefs to identify all underfunded or 
     unmet quality of life, readiness and modernization 
     requirements in the five year budget plan and to estimate how 
     much it would cost to fully fund these requirements over the 
     next five years.
       The lists that the services forwarded reveal substantial 
     underfunded requirements. In fiscal year 1999 alone, these 
     shortfalls total over $10 billion; for the five-year period 
     ending in fiscal year 2003, the shortfalls amount to over $58 
     billion. Moreover, if you study the chiefs' responses, I 
     believe a compelling case can be made that the shortfalls may 
     be understated. It is particularly troubling that these 
     shortfalls have been identified at a time when the Balanced 
     Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) has set defense spending at levels 
     that continue the fourteen year trend of real decline for the 
     next five years.
       It is also interesting to note that the five-year defense 
     budget plan called for in the BBA falls more than $54 billion 
     short of keeping pace even with today's record low inflation 
     (see attached chart). And, were inflation to increase even 
     modestly to historical averages, the five-year plan could 
     fall short of inflation by as much as $100 billion.
       The attached table presents the underfunded or unmet 
     requirements by service in each of the next five years. 
     Should you require additional information or have any further 
     questions, please contact Andrew Ellis (5-9648) or Dino 
     Aviles (6-0533) on the committee staff.
       Attachments (2)

                                      MILITARY SERVICES UNFUNDED PRIORITIES                                     
                                       [millions of current year dollars]                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fiscal year--                                      
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------    Total   
                                        1999         2000         2001         2002         2003                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:                                                                                                           
    FY 99 Contingency Ops (Bosnia)      1,390.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........      1,390.0
    MIL-Tech Restoration..........         36.5  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         36.5
    Real Property Maintenance.....        463.5        500.0        500.0        500.0        500.0      2,463.5
    Base Operations...............        500.0        500.0        500.0        500.0        500.0      2,500.0
    ARNG & USAR OPTEMPO...........        199.8        250.0        250.0        250.0        250.0      1.999.8
    Military Pay..................        120.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        120.0
    MILCON........................        214.4  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        214.4
    Soldier Life Support..........         72.1  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         72.1
    Embedded Diagnostics (TMDE)...         39.5  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         39.5
    Comanche (2nd prototype                                                                                     
     acceleration)................         24.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         24.0
    Crusader......................         11.5  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         11.5
    AFATDS........................         20.7  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         20.7
    HMMWV.........................         65.7  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         65.7
    Apache 2nd FLIR...............         50.3  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         50.3
    Command and Control...........         22.5  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         22.5
    Engineer Equipment............         46.9  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         46.9
    Demonstration of New                                                                                        
     Technology...................         39.8  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         39.8
    Tactical Vehicles and Trailers         92.7  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         92.7
    Family of Medium Tactical                                                                                   
     Vehicles.....................         88.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         88.0
    Blackhawk Helicopters (8 for                                                                                
     ARNG)........................         78.5  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         78.5
    C\3\ Equipment................         92.9  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         92.9
    Apacher Longbow (training                                                                                   
     devices).....................         40.2  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         40.2
    Small Arms....................         41.8  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         41.8
    Javelin.......................         37.9  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         37.9
    Test Equipment and Facilities.         10.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         10.0
    Ammunition Production Base....         39.3  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         39,3
    Test Equiipment and Range                                                                                   
     Improvements.................         34.6  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         34.6
    Depot Maintenance.............  ...........        400.0        400.0        400.0        400.0      1,600.0
    Training and Support..........  ...........        350.0        350.0        350.0        350.0      1,400.0
    Ammunition, Force XXI, night                                                                                
     vision, soldier                                                                                            
     modernization, combat support/                                                                             
     combat service support, and                                                                                
     C\3\I........................  ...........      2,000,0      2,000.0      2,000.0      2,000.0      8,000.0
    Critical Modernization (Abrams                                                                              
     tank, Bradley FV, Apache                                                                                   
     Longbow 2nd gen FLIR,                                                                                      
     digitization)................  ...........        1,000        1,000        1,000      1,000.0      4,000.0
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Army total................      3,873.0      5,000.0      5,000.0      5,000.0      5,000.0     23,873.0
Navy:                                                                                                           
    Aviation Spares...............         45.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         45.0
    OPTEMPO (Steaming days for                                                                                  
     mine warfare)................         20.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         20.0
    Ship Depot Maintenance........         90.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         90.0
    Real Property Maintenance.....        391.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        391.0
    Reserve Pay (ADT & ADSW)......         20.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         20.0
    TOMAHAWK Missile                                                                                            
     Recertification..............         27.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         27.0
    Shipbuilding (CVN-77 and ADCX)        550.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        550.0
    Aircraft Procurement (E-2C and                                                                              
     AIP).........................        143.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        143.0
    MILCON-QOL and Other..........        273.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        273.0
    RDT&E (Aviation Programs).....         45.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         45.0
    LANTIRN Pods..................          8.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          8.0
    Submarine equipment and RDT&E.         94.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         94.0
    Ship Self Defense systems.....         30.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         30.0
    CVN RDT&E (technology                                                                                       
     insertion)...................         33.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         33.0
    Cooperative Engagement                                                                                      
     Capability (CEC).............         20.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         20.0
    IT-21 Procurement and O&M.....        143.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        143.0
    O&M-QOL (BEQ furnishings).....         10.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         10.0
    O&M-Other (NSIPS, ATMs,                                                                                     
     Recruiting)..................         93.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         93.0
    STANDARD Missile Procurement..         48.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         48.0
    Family Housing................         53.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         53.0
    Shipbuilding Rates............  ...........        600.0        600.0        600.0        600.0      2,400.0
    Aircraft Procurement Rates....  ...........        750.0        750.0        750.0        750.0      3,000.0
    RDT&E (next generation                                                                                      
     combatants)..................  ...........        400.0        400.0        400.0        400.0      1,600.0
    Recruiting, Training and                                                                                    
     Retention....................  ...........        400.0        400.0        400.0        400.0      1,600.0
    MILCON........................  ...........        700.0        700.0        700.0        700.0      2,800.0
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Navy total................      2,136.0      2,850.0      2,850.0      2,850.0      2,850.0     13,536.0
Marine Corps:                                                                                                   
    Personnel Support Equip/                                                                                    
     Initial Issue................         64.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         64.0
    Other Personnel Education and                                                                               
     Training.....................          2.6  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          2.6
    Family Housing................         82.1  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         82.1
    MILCON--QOL...................        100.7  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        100.7
    USMCR OPTEMPO & ADSW..........          6.7  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          6.7
    Recruiting & Advertising......         22.4         30.0         30.0         30.0         30.0        142.4

[[Page H3469]]

                                                                                                                
    Depot Maintenance.............         20.7  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         20.7
    Base Operations Support.......         10.4  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         10.4
    Operating Forces Support......         16.1  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         16.1
    Miscellaneous Readiness                                                                                     
     Activities...................         23.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         23.0
    Aviation Modernization (MV-22,                                                                              
     AV-8B, etc)..................        290.5        750.0        750.0        750.0        750.0      3,290.5
    Ground Equipment Modernization        265.4        650.0        650.0        650.0        650.0      2,865.4
    Amphibious Equipment                                                                                        
     Modernization (LCAC).........         32.8  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         32.8
    Real Property Maintenance.....         72.0        120.0        132.9        102.8         95.5        523.2
    MILCON--Other.................         74.0        176.0        181.0        143.0        141.0        715.0
    Personnel Mgmt & Other........          2.6  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          2.6
    Increase Equipment Maintenance  ...........        100.0        100.0        100.0        100.0        400.0
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Marine Corps........      1,086.0      1,826.0      1,843.9      1,775.8      1,766.5      8,298.2
Air Force:                                                                                                      
    Spares........................        219.6        295.8        311.5        240.9        208.8      1,276.6
    Depot Maintenance.............        182.4        121.9        168.7        198.2        208.2        879.4
    Engines.......................        274.4        321.7        254.6        221.9        231.8      1,304.4
    Training......................         73.3         59.5         60.8         62.1         63.4        319.1
    Technical Orders..............         24.0         57.5         38.4         29.5         26.2        175.6
    Real Property Maint...........        363.0        424.0        499.0        608.0        508.0      2,402.0
    Base Operating Support........        294.4        205.9        170.6        172.5        189.9        988.3
    Aircraft Systems..............        157.3        157.3        166.5        182.3        255.5        918.9
    Space Launch Ranges...........         28.3         24.3         32.3         33.4         22.2        140.5
    MILCON--Readiness.............        310.6        272.3        231.3        216.2        209.8      1,240.2
    War Reserve Material..........         64.0         13.0  ...........  ...........  ...........         77.0
    MILCON--QOL...................        464.4        439.9        416.2        410.8        411.1      2,142.4
    Communications................         96.4         99.7         99.1         85.5         87.4        468.1
    Special Purpose Vehicles......         50.0         52.8         46.9         41.7         42.6        234.0
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Air Force Total...........      2,557.1      2,545.6      2,495.9      2,503.0      2,464.9     12,566.5
                                   =============================================================================
        Total, All Services.......      9,652.1     12,221.6     12,189.8     12,128.8     12,081.4     58,273.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on National Security,

                                   Washington, DC, April 22, 1998.
     Hon. William J. Clinton, President of the United States of 
       America.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House.
     Hon. Richard A. Gephardt, House Minority Leader.
     Hon. Trent Lott, Senate Majority Leader.
     Hon. Tom Daschle, Senate Minority Leader.
       Dear Sirs: The fiscal year 1999 defense budget request 
     represents the fourteenth consecutive year of real decline in 
     defense spending that has occurred under Administrations and 
     Congressional majorities of both parties.
       The fall of the Berlin Wall brought with it an opportunity 
     to reduce the nation's Cold War defense structure. We 
     believe, however, that the threats and challenges America 
     confronts today and the resulting pressures they have placed 
     on a still shrinking U.S. military have been underestimated. 
     At what we believe to be a critical point in history, the 
     mismatch between the nation's military strategy and the 
     resources required to implement it is growing. Consequently, 
     a wide range of quality of life, readiness and modernization 
     shortfalls have developed that, if left unchecked, threaten 
     the long-term viability of today's all-volunteer force. 
     Compelling our men and women in uniform to ``do more with 
     less'' risks a return to a hollow military and jeopardizes 
     America's ability to effectively protect and promote its 
     national interests around the world.
       Make no mistake, the men and women who serve in uniform 
     today comprise the finest military force in the world. They 
     are truly America's best and brightest. It took almost a 
     generation following the Vietnam War to build the force that 
     quickly and decisively won the Persian Gulf War just seven 
     years ago. Yet as the pace of military operations increases 
     against a backdrop of declining resources, we must recognize 
     that our all-volunteer force is under stress. We need to take 
     better care of our men and women in uniform.
       Despite several years of aggressive Pentagon reform, it is 
     apparent that even if the most optimistic estimates of 
     reform-generated savings materialize, they will fall far 
     short of adequately addressing underfunded quality of life, 
     readiness and modernization requirements as well as the 
     inevitable deployments in the years ahead. Having just 
     concluded our initial oversight hearings on the fiscal year 
     1999 defense budget request, it is our collective judgment 
     that, short of an unwise retrenchment and overhaul of U.S. 
     national military strategy, fixing the nation's long-term 
     defense program will require increased defense spending. 
     Without additional defense resources to reverse the fourteen 
     year pattern of spending decline, the military services will 
     be unable to stabilize their shrinking force structures, 
     protect quality of life and readiness and modernize rapidly 
     aging equipment.
       In the context of the first federal budget surplus in three 
     decades and today's strong economy, we call on you, the 
     nation's bipartisan political leadership, to reopen 
     negotiations on the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 in order to 
     provide for a sustained period of real growth in defense 
     spending. We understand that other issues would be part of 
     any such agenda. However, the inevitable result of adhering 
     to an agreement that ensures declining defense budgets 
     indefinitely will be the hollowing of the U.S. military. 
     Because we believe that to ``provide for the common defense'' 
     is the federal government's first, and most important, 
     responsibility, we stand ready to work with you to ensure 
     that America maintains a military befitting our nation's 
     superpower status--a military that remains second to none.
           Sincerely,
     Floyd D. Spence,
       Chairman, Committee on National Security.
     Duncan Hunter,
       Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Procurement.
     Curt Weldon,
       Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Research and 
     Development.
     Herbert H. Bateman,
       Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Readiness.
     Joel Hefley,
       Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Installations and 
     Facilities.
     Ike Skelton,
       Ranking Member, Committee on National Security.
     Norman Sisisky,
       Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Procurement.
     Owen B. Pickett,
       Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Research, and 
     Development.
     Solomon P. Ortiz,
       Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Readiness.
     Neil Abercrombie,
       Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Installations and 
     Facilities.
     Gene Taylor,
       Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I rise to offer my support and 
make the following observations on H.R. 3616, the National Defense 
Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 1999.
  Allow me, first, to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for his commitment to having the work on 
the committee carried on in a bipartisan fashion, as was reflected as 
such in this bill. Not only did he and I work together on a number of 
issues, but the staff that worked for the minority had numerous 
occasions to work with the staff on the majority to influence and 
improve the overall product of this bill. Overall, this truly was a 
bipartisan effort and can be best summarized

[[Page H3470]]

by the overwhelming support that the bill received in the committee, 50 
votes for with only one against.
  This will also be the last time, Mr. Chairman, that the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Harman) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
McHale) will participate in these deliberations. I want to thank them 
for their fine work over the years and their contributions to the work 
in this committee. Their presence will certainly be missed.
  As we begin consideration of this bill, let me underline the point 
that this year we are operating under the restrictions of the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997. The totals on defense were agreed to by both 
executive and legislative branches last summer. As a result, the 
overall total for the defense budget today, $270 billion in budget 
authority, which we handle on our committee, is as much a reflection of 
congressional priorities as it is of executive priorities.
  As a result of that agreement, the task of trying to address the many 
issues affecting the Armed Forces has become much more difficult to 
manage this year than in past years. Over the past 3 years, the 
committee and this Congress added funds to defense. We did not have 
that option this year and worked within the confines of the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997.
  Let me try to set the scene a bit as we consider this defense bill. 
The fallen Berlin wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the 
Soviet Union 2 years later brought with it the end of the Cold War. It 
also brought with it the opportunity to substantially reduce both the 
size of our Armed Forces and reduce the burden of defense expenditures 
on our Nation.
  In 1989, we had over 2.1 million active duty service members in an 
Army of 18 divisions, a Navy of over 540 ships, and an Air Force of 24 
fighter wing equivalents. Today, the military is about 1.4 million 
active duty service members in an Army of 10 divisions, a Navy with 315 
ships, and an Air Force with 20 fighter wing equivalents.
  The percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the GDP, devoted to defense 
in 1989 was 5.7 percent. For the current fiscal year, we are spending 
3.2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product on defense. Next year will be 
3.1 percent, the smallest share we will have spent on defense since 
1941 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
  I cite these figures simply to highlight the point that, with the end 
of the Cold War, we made substantial reductions in both the size of our 
Armed Forces and the burden of defense spending. It was proper to do 
both.
  Since the end of the Cold War, we have had five different reviews of 
our defense structure.
  Our current defense strategy is a subset of our national security 
strategy. As described in the Quadrennial Defense Review, our defense 
strategy calls for shaping the international environment in ways 
favorable to United States interests, responding to the full spectrum 
of crises when it is in our interest to do so, and preparing now for an 
uncertain future.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to deal with the problems of 
today in anticipating the needs of tomorrow. It is the right strategy 
to have at a time of change and uncertainty.
  However, as we have reduced the size of our forces since 1989, we 
have also increased the pace of our military deployments. This is 
serious. An Army cut almost 40 percent since 1988 has experienced a 300 
percent increase in its operational pace. An Air Force that has 
undergone similar personnel reductions has experienced a fourfold 
increase in its operational pace.
  Each of the services is struggling with a task of adjusting the size, 
composition, mission of its forces to deal with the implications of 
operating in this more demanding post-Cold War environment.
  Our Armed Forces today are ready. However, if we keep up the current 
pace of operations and deployments, we may not be ready 5 years from 
now. Let me just say again, I believe we were right to reduce our 
forces and defense spending when the Cold War came to an end. I also 
believe we are right to have a defense strategy that promotes our 
involvement in the world.
  But I believe that we may have reduced the size of our forces and the 
size of the defense budget a little too much. I believe we have a 
mismatch between the demanding goals we have set for ourselves and the 
resources we are willing to spend to obtain those goals.
  That is why, about a month ago, senior committee leaders of both 
parties wrote the President and senior leaders in this Congress that 
the current strategy required increased defense spending.
  Because of the changed economic conditions in which we find 
ourselves, I believe we should place an increase in defense spending on 
the national agenda. I believe that we can increase defense spending 
without having to reduce domestic spending; that we can increase 
defense spending and also reduce the national debt; that we can 
increase defense spending by also saving Social Security. But we will 
also have to arrive at a new national consensus to do so.
  The world is still a complex, ever-changing, and dangerous place. In 
many ways, yesterday's solutions have spawned today's problems. The 
challenges we face are numerous: the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, the intentions and actions of rogue states, the threat of 
terrorism, the possible emergence of China as a hostile power in the 
21st century, the uncertain future of Russia, drug trafficking, the 
security of our information systems, regional hot spots, and last, but 
not least, humanitarian crises.
  We have an opportunity to promote a more peaceful, prosperous, and 
stable world than those of us who lived through the troubling middle 
years of this century would ever have thought possible. However, we 
must be vigilant and remain engaged abroad. An important part of that 
engagement effort is a properly sized, trained, equipped, and ready 
military to protect our national interests.
  As we consider this bill, I hope my colleagues will keep these 
concerns in mind. Despite the constraints of the Balanced Budget Act, I 
believe we have fashioned a pretty good bill.
  We have provided a pay raise of 3.6 percent, half a percent more than 
the Department of Defense requested, supported the Department's 
requested real increase in the procurement budget for modernization, 
and maintained strong support for the cooperative threat reduction 
program, which is very important, to accelerate the dismantlement of 
former Soviet strategic offensive arms that threaten our country.

  One important matter that I want to highlight concerns a report the 
committee has requested by the Department on Counterterrorism and 
Defense against the use by terrorists of weapons of mass destruction on 
United States territory.
  Since 1994, Congress has expressed increasing concern about this 
threat. It is a very difficult, complex issue requiring Federal, State, 
local efforts, and coordination. Our effort is simply one more step to 
try to deal with the issue in a comprehensive fashion. Much work has 
been done in this area, and much more needs to be done. My concern is 
that we do so in a well-planned, well-coordinated effort at the State, 
Federal, and local levels.
  In addition to the report, I will cosponsor, Mr. Chairman, an 
amendment with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) addressing 
this important anti- and counterterrorism issue.
  In a defense bill recommending $270.8 billion in budget authority, 
there were, of course, issues of contention. The decision to include 
two recommendations of the Kassebaum-Baker panel on gender-integrated 
training stirred one of the most substantive debates at both the 
subcommittee and full committee mark-up sessions. I did not support 
including those recommended in our bill.
  As one who believes that we need to provide for a sustained period of 
real growth in defense spending, I believe that we undermine our case 
by funding unnecessary programs and weapons. In our bill, we have added 
seven C-130s that were neither requested by the Pentagon in its budget 
request nor even placed on the services' unfunded requirements list. At 
the same time, we did not fully fund the administration's request for 
the F-18 E/Fs, which the Navy has told us is their number one 
requirement.
  Despite these flaws, overall, this is a good bill.
  I will defer to other members of the committee on both sides to 
discuss the many important initiatives found in

[[Page H3471]]

this bill. They have worked hard, and I compliment all of the members 
of the committee. Those on our side of the aisle have been very, very 
cooperative, and they have worked very hard. This is especially true of 
the subcommittee and panel chairman and ranking members.
  Allow me to thank the staff who so ably assist us. Their dedication 
and expertise and capacity for hard work, Mr. Chairman, cannot be 
underestimated.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), the Chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Procurement.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence), chairman of the full committee, who wrapped this 
package together along with his counterpart, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and commend them for doing more with less this 
year.
  I want to thank also the wise gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), 
who is my good partner on the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, for 
all the work that he did.
  Having thanked those gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, let me say that this 
has been a thankless year for this committee, because we have been 
forced to preside over the decline of America's defenses, a very 
dramatic decline.
  Anyone who looks at this chart and looks at the various functions, 
mandatory outlays which have increased from 1991 to fiscal year 2001 by 
over 38 percent, domestic discretionary outlays, that includes all the 
social programs that have increased some 15 percent in that same period 
of time.
  Finally, look at defense going down 33 percent over that period of 
time. We understand that we have reversed our priorities and that we no 
longer consider the security of this Nation to be the number one 
priority. That mistake we have made in the past, my friends; and, in 
the past, it has cost American lives.

                              {time}  2215

  If we get specific, we can talk about the reductions in force 
structure that we have made. We have gone down since Desert Storm from 
the 18 Army divisions we had to only 10 today, the same number of 
divisions we had when South Korea was invaded in 1950; we have gone 
down from 24 to 13 fighter air wings, cut our air power almost in half; 
and we have cut our ships from 546 ships to about 333 ships.
  At the same time, we have put enormous strain on our people, and we 
are losing our people. The other day, when I had a chance to go up with 
the C-5 refueling with some of our great Air Force personnel and had a 
chance to talk with some of those personnel about whether or not they 
wanted to stay in the Air Force, the answer that all of us got back was 
disturbing, because we are projected to be 835 pilots short this year. 
And it is not just a money problem. It is a fact that we have such a 
small force now and such major obligations around the world that our 
pilots are not able to spend that graduation with their daughter, or go 
to their son's wedding, or do the other things that the men and women 
in uniform like to do, that is, to have a family life. So we are 
dropping down radically on personnel.
  The Commandant of the Marine Corps told us a couple of months ago 
that at times he has had the highest OPTEMPO, that means the most 
Marines staying the longest time away from home since World War II. You 
can go right through the personnel problems and see that we are in fact 
approaching that time in 1979 when, as a guy in San Diego, I could look 
at our naval personnel and see that we had 1,000 chief petty officers a 
month leaving the Navy. That was a dramatic problem. We are approaching 
that same problem today across the array of military services.
  Now, with respect to our modernization accounts, this account is 
about $60 billion less in real dollars than it was in the 1980s. That 
means we are using tanks, planes and ships much longer than we used 
them in the past. We are running out their lifetime. As a result of 
that, we have grounded some 907 Huey helicopters because they are not 
safe to fly anymore. We are building five ships this year. We are 
building to a 200 ship Navy. Just a few years ago we had almost a 600 
ship Navy, and none of our projections for projecting the American 
power and foreign policy have lessened. So we have dramatically cut the 
national security budget.
  We had just a few cents to spend on what I call platform items this 
year. We bought a few Blackhawk helicopters, two F-16 fighters, 
probably fewer F-16's than Sweden is going to buy this year, and just a 
few other platforms. That is all we could afford to add to the budget 
this year. We are buying some 66 total tactical aircraft, and that is 
in fact about 1\1/2\ times the buy that Switzerland made a couple of 
years ago on aircraft.
  So we are rapidly disserving our military people in a most critical 
way. That is, we are not giving them the equipment they need to do the 
job. That is just as important as giving them pay, giving them quality 
of life, giving them good living quarters. So, Mr. Chairman, we can a 
lot with the few dollars that we had this year.
  I want to thank all of the folks that worked so hard on the other 
side of the aisle, all of our staff members. I hope the House will pass 
this defense budget, and then come back to raise the top line, spend 
more on defense, and give us more security.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to our distinguished chairman, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), I appreciate everything he has done. 
Of course, to our ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), and, of course, my chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Procurement, the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Hunter), my 
sincere thanks.
  It is strange, this is my 16th bill, and it is very strange what we 
are doing. We are not talking about a lot of things that happened in 
the bill. What we are talking about is why we are short in the bill. I 
am not opposed to that, because I am going to say the same thing, after 
I talk a little bit about the procurement bill.
  Before I do that, let me ask all of my colleagues to support this 
defense authorization bill. It is not a perfect bill, but it is about 
as perfect as we can make it within current budget limitations. As 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, I am all 
too aware of how budget limits impact procurement.
  Let me just pick two items. I am delighted that we were able to fund 
the advance funding for CVN-77, which is a transition carrier between 
the CVX, the last of the Nimitz carriers. My biggest concern, however, 
on the other side, is we had to cut 36 F-18 E/Fs from the Navy.
  We have reduced this program so much that these reductions threaten 
to postpone the initial operational capability and first deployment, 
yet this aircraft is on time, under budget and meeting all performance 
specifications. Even these marginal reductions will force the unit 
costs up by $2.4 million for each of the remaining 27 aircraft. I 
completely understand why this reduction is made, but I cannot help but 
think there might have been a better solution, and I appreciate the 
commitment of the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) to look 
for a better solution in the conference.
  Other than that, all Members should realize their requests for 
additional funding totalled about $6 billion. Even with the shifting of 
funds from other accounts to the procurement account, we were only able 
to come up with less than $1 billion.
  Nevertheless, this bill authorizes $49 billion for procurement, an 
increase of $2.8 billion over last year, and $300 million more than the 
President's request. Despite these small gains, there remains very 
serious shortfalls, as shown by the unfunded priority list submitted by 
the military services. These shortfalls occur in all DOD accounts, and 
most of our chairmen and ranking members have written the leadership, 
as you heard, in both houses, maybe even asking to open the 1997 budget 
agreement.
  The reason is we really are in danger of having a hollow force. Our 
military and civilian leaders persist in saying that our forces are 
``adequate'' or ``barely adequate.'' I am concerned, however, that 
words like ``adequate'' or ``barely adequate'' are not good enough

[[Page H3472]]

to send our young warriors into harm's way. My concern is that over the 
last 14 years, so this is bipartisan now, of declining defense budgets, 
we have cut so deep that we simply may not be good enough to meet 
current threats with an acceptable level of risk.
  Our problem is that procurement, readiness, training and other things 
that contribute to effective military operations are on very thin ice, 
and I worry that the risks we take because we do not have enough money 
in the defense budget will come back to haunt us. I worry we may not 
wake up until we suffer some disaster, like when the hostage rescue 
fell apart in 1980, or when our positions were overrun during the early 
stages of Korea.

  I worry that their can-do attitude will lead our young men and women 
to stand up and salute, even when we assign a task for which they are 
not adequately equipped or trained, and they have done that before.
  The bottom line is that it took a bipartisan effort to get us in this 
hole, and I think it will take a bipartisan effort to get us out.
  So I ask all of my colleagues to support this bill, which is the best 
we can do under the circumstances. But I also ask you to ponder the 
risk of cutting national security this close to the bone. In my 
opinion, this budget is no longer ``adequate'' or ``barely adequate.'' 
We already passed that point a year or two ago.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield four minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Installations and Facilities.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have always felt that the Subcommittee on 
Military Installations and Facilities has been the most bipartisan 
committee that I have seen since being in the Congress, and I think 
this year the full committee has indicated that they, too, are a very 
bipartisan committee, and has produced a product, which, while we are 
not totally satisfied with it, at least it is a product that I think 
every Member should support in a bipartisan way.
  I rise to support H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for 1999. It is a bipartisan bill, it deserves strong bipartisan 
support, and I want to spend just the few brief moments that I have 
available to highlight the military construction aspects of this 
legislation.
  The Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities continues 
to be deeply concerned about the serious shortfalls in basic 
infrastructure. We are all talking about shortfalls, and they are 
there, and every single subcommittee chairman and ranking member will 
probably mention this, in military housing and other facilities that 
affect the readiness and training of the Armed Forces and the quality 
of life for military personnel and their families.
  The budget requested by the administration for 1999 continued a 
pattern of significant deterioration in funding programs by the 
Department of Defense for military construction. Overall, the 
administration proposed 7 percent less in military construction's 
accounts than one year ago, and 15 percent less than the program 
authorized by Congress. Yet the military services continue to provide 
testimony and other evidence that their needs are not being met 
adequately by the administration's program.
  Based on the record, it is clear that the construction programs of 
the services would need to be at least twice as large as they currently 
are to begin to address the backlog of serious shortfalls in 
facilities. The evidence that antiquated, obsolete, overused inadequate 
facilities and military housing are an impediment to effective training 
and readiness and to the assurance of decent quality of life for 
military personnel is clear to anyone who would care to examine the 
record built by the subcommittee.
  Earlier this year, in response to a question from the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Chairman Spence) about their unfunded requirements, the 
service chiefs provided a list of shortfalls across the broad spectrum 
of need. The unfunded MILCON requirement identified by the chiefs is 
$7.6 billion. The recommendations the committee brings to the House 
today will help alleviate a portion of the backlog and critical 
shortfalls.
  H.R. 3616 does not go as far as I would like. The fiscal constraints 
faced by the committee prevented us from providing as much in the way 
of additional resources as we have over the past three years. This 
bill, however, contains an additional $450 million in added funding for 
military construction and military family housing, which would permit 
us to buy back about one-third of the administration's $1.4 billion cut 
in the MILCON top line. Given the condition of facilities and the needs 
identified by the services, it is not enough, but I believe we will 
make good use of these limited funds.
  The bipartisan bill would provide an additional $183 million for 
quality of life enhancements. These funds would provide additional 
military family housing, troop housing, child development centers, 
fitness centers and other community support facilities that are 
integral to the support of military personnel and their families. In 
addition, it would provide additional funding for military construction 
to support the training, readiness and maintenance requirements of the 
active and reserve components.
  In closing, I want to express again my appreciation to the members of 
the subcommittee, especially the ranking Democrat member, the gentleman 
from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), for their contributions to this 
legislation. This is truly a bipartisan effort, as I stated at the 
outset, and I urge all Members to support H.R. 3616.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Pickett).
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the committee chairman and the members and 
staff for the balanced and responsive bill we have before us. This bill 
has been thoughtfully and carefully put together within the constraints 
of a defense budget that continues to decline in purchasing power.
  In any undertaking of this kind, the defining of and the adherence to 
a system of priorities is absolutely essential for a realistic and 
responsive program. My comments will relate primarily to the research 
and development part of this bill.
  The investment for basic research and for science and technology 
programs has been maintained at current levels. It is widely 
acknowledged that these basic research and technology programs have 
been the crucial component in developing and fielding technologically 
superior weapons systems that have given our military forces a decided 
advantage over their adversaries.
  In spite of the success in developing and fielding improved weapons 
systems and weapon systems upgrades, there a constant struggle to 
appropriately and adequately prepare our forces for the unpredictable 
and speculative battlefield of the 21st Century. The Army is continuing 
development of its top priority new weapons systems, the Crusader Self-
Propelled Howitzer and the Comanche helicopter. The Navy is moving 
ahead with the DD-21 destroyer, the follow-on to the Nimitz aircraft 
carrier, and a new class of attack submarine.

                              {time}  2230

  The Air Force is reaching the end of its development of the F-22 and 
is moving forward along with the Navy and Marine Corps in the 
development of the Joint Strike Fighter. These visible priority 
programs point the way to the military of the future. Nevertheless, the 
pursuit of lighter and more lethal weapons, the development of speedier 
and more stealthy equipment, and the quest for successful leap-ahead 
technologies continues.
  The Department of Defense has said many times that if our forces are 
called into combat, we do not want a fair fight. We want our forces to 
have a clearly superior capability, both in weapons systems and 
technology. That is the direction in which this bill continues to move 
our defense program, although I must say that the move is at a slower 
pace than I believe is desirable.
  The committee and committee staff have been alert and diligent in 
reallocating resources to higher priority and more timely projects. 
Additional support has been provided to missile defense programs in an 
effort to make certain that these programs are not resource 
constrained. With alarming reports of continuing advances by other

[[Page H3473]]

nations in missile technology, every effort must be made to develop and 
deploy workable and defendable missile defense systems on behalf of our 
Nation at the earliest possible time.
  The level of readiness of our military forces continues to be the 
subject of intense debate and discussion. After thoughtful and careful 
consideration of a wide variety of materials and testimony, I am 
persuaded that the readiness of our military has indeed declined. This 
is an ominous sign at a time when the shortfall for funding the 
procurement necessary to modernize our forces is approaching a 
deficiency of 25 percent of the amount needed. It is time for the 
Congress to provide more resources to our military.
  Mr. Chairman, within the limits of the 1999 level of resources 
available to our committee, I believe the defense program incorporated 
in this bill is as robust and effective as can be devised. For this, I 
compliment the committee and our staff and encourage all Members to 
fully support H.R. 3616.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 3616, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999. I want to specifically address 
the provisions in the Act relating to military readiness.
  First, I would like to express my personal appreciation to the 
Subcommittee on Readiness leadership and to my colleagues on both the 
subcommittee and the full committee for the manner in which they 
conducted the business of the subcommittee this session. I want to 
specifically thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), my 
chairman, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton). Although the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) is not 
with us today, I want to express my appreciation for his personal 
involvement and the extraordinary steps that he took in getting us to 
where we are.
  We had the opportunity to see the readiness through a different set 
of eyes, the eyes of the brave soldiers, sailors and airmen who are 
entrusted with the awesome responsibility of carrying out our national 
military strategy. We heard them talk about the shortage of repair 
parts while we were conducting hearings throughout the continental 
United States, and the extra hours spent trying to maintain old 
equipment, and the shortage of critical personnel. While we in this 
body might differ on some policy and program objectives, we on the 
subcommittee were able to get a better appreciation of the challenges 
that these brave souls faced in trying to do more with less. For their 
effort we can all be proud. I personally remain concerned about how 
long they will be able to keep up the pace.
  The readiness provisions in the bill reflect some of the steps I 
believe are necessary with the dollars available to make their task 
easier. It does not provide all that is needed. I would be more pleased 
if the migration of O&M funds to other accounts did not take place. 
Much more could be used. I remain perplexed when I reflect on the 
impact that the resource shortages are having on every facet of our 
military. That includes the stability of our dedicated civilian 
employees who are also being asked to remain productive while at the 
same time the department appears to be trying to take away their jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I share the comments that have often been repeated by 
our subcommittee members and other Members that readiness across the 
board is in bad shape, and we need to do something about it. At the 
same time, I believe that the readiness provisions represent a step in 
the right direction. I would hope that as we continue through the 
passage of this bill and go into conference with the Senate, that we 
will continue to search for opportunities to increase the resources 
available for the readiness accounts. I ask my colleagues to support 
this great bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Jacksonville, Florida (Mrs. Fowler), the vice-chair of the 
Subcommittee on Readiness.
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3616, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999, and 
I want to especially thank our Chairman, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence) and ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) for their strong commitment to national defense and for 
the bipartisan manner in which they fashioned this excellent piece of 
legislation.
  In its continuing effort to assess force readiness, this year our 
committee once again conducted a series of field hearings at various 
military installations throughout the country to hear from our 
operational field commanders and senior noncommissioned officers from 
all the military services. The overwhelming impression left with the 
committee was of a force working harder, longer, and with fewer 
personnel than ever before. Funding and forces continue to shrink while 
demands of the job increase.
  For example, the Army has conducted 26 operational events, now these 
are actions other than routine training and alliance operations, since 
1991, compared to only 10 during the preceding 31 years. The Marine 
Corps has conducted 62 contingency operations since 1997, compared to 
only 15 such operations since 1982 to 1989. These increases in 
operational tempo are occurring at the same time that the Army has been 
reduced from 18 to 10 divisions, the Navy is on a track to eliminate 
nearly 250 ships, or almost 45 percent of the fleet, and the Air Force 
has been reduced from 24 to 12 fighter wings.

  Among the disturbing problems identified in the committee's hearings 
and investigations were indications of a growing shortage of spare 
parts which has led to the increased cannibalization of frontline 
equipment, combat systems being operated at a pace that requires far 
more extensive maintenance and repair, and the deterioration of 
facilities where personnel live and work to levels below acceptable 
standards.
  Mr. Chairman, these are indicators of broader trends throughout the 
force that are raising doubts about present and future readiness. To 
address many of these issues, H.R. 3616 includes provisions to increase 
funding for critical readiness areas, including depot maintenance, 
replacement spare parts and real property maintenance. Because there 
are no additional funds to pay for these increases, the committee had 
to reprioritize several of the nonreadiness related administrative and 
support accounts.
  Now, according to senior Pentagon leaders, readiness is at acceptable 
levels, or readiness is as good as it has ever been, yet when we go out 
in the field and talk to individual military members, we hear a very 
different story. To get at these discrepancies concerning the condition 
of our armed forces, H.R. 3616 contains provisions that require DOD to 
expand and improve its readiness reporting system. I believe these and 
other provisions found in this bill will provide necessary up-to-date 
readiness information to the senior leadership of the Pentagon and to 
Congress, and will offer visibility into readiness deficiencies before 
they can become full-scale breakdowns.
  Now, there is one other point I would like to make. The committee has 
recently heard from the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint 
Chiefs of Staff emphasizing the importance of fully funding the 
Operations and Maintenance budget to ensure readiness. Now, although I 
emphatically agree that readiness must be kept at the highest possible 
level, it is important to stress that not all of the operations and 
maintenance budget is directly tied to military readiness.
  Of all the major elements of the defense budget, perhaps the least 
understood is the O&M account. At $94.8 billion, O&M funding accounts 
for the largest share of the President's defense budget request for 
fiscal year 1999, and it is traditionally considered the readiness 
account. But the O&M account, or more precisely, accounts, includes 
much more than critical readiness spending. In addition to paying for 
day-to-day military operations, training, supply and equipment 
maintenance, O&M funds administrative functions, environmental 
restoration, cooperative threat reduction efforts, humanitarian

[[Page H3474]]

assistance, and many other programs. Now, whatever the merits of these 
other programs, they are related only marginally to the readiness of 
U.S. forces to fight the Nation's wars. In fact, only about one-half of 
the total O&M account is directly related to readiness.
  After a thorough subcommittee review of the administration's O&M 
budget request for fiscal year 1999, I am convinced that it is riddled 
with accountant-inspired gamesmanship designed to inflate the O&M top 
line and create the appearance of an administration fully committed to 
funding readiness. H.R. 3616 addresses the under-funding of critical 
readiness accounts by realigning funds from nonreadiness accounts.
  Mr. Chairman, frankly, I would prefer to be taking up legislation 
that would provide more funding for defense than is authorized by this 
bill. Fiscal year 1999 will represent the fourteenth year in a row in 
which real defense spending declined, but given the budget constraints 
under which we have to operate, I believe H.R. 3616 goes as far as it 
can to ensure that the Defense Department receives the resources 
necessary to provide for the most important readiness requirements for 
our military forces.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close by thanking the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Readiness, my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Bateman) who was recuperating from surgery during markup, but 
whose good counsel was invaluable to me as I stood in as acting 
chairman, as well as the ranking member the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Ortiz), for his outstanding leadership and for his contributions and 
his good friendship. The Subcommittee on Readiness had to deal with 
several difficult issues transcending political lines, and our task 
would have been far more difficult if not for the expertise and 
assistance of these 2 distinguished Members and the cooperation of all 
of the subcommittee's Members.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, a while back I was visiting 
the honors class at Hattiesburg High School. One of my students asked 
me that in my capacity as a member of the Committee on National 
Security, ``What are you? Are you the cheerleaders or the critics for 
America's military?'' And my answer to her was, we are both.
  The cheerleader in me wants to report that I think we did the very 
best we could with what we had. The critic in me wants to point out 
that I do not think this Congress as a whole is appropriating enough to 
our Nation's defense.
  I hear on a daily basis some of my colleagues come to the House floor 
and say, well, we are pretty close to balancing the budget, so let us 
give our wealthiest contributors a big tax break. Some of my other 
colleagues come to the House floor and say, well, we are almost 
balancing the budget, so let us pass a whole bunch of new social 
programs. They are both wrong.
  The highest priority of this Nation has to be to defend this Nation, 
the States can do almost everything else, and I am troubled that we are 
not doing it well enough. I am also troubled that of the 5 people who 
put together the defense budget, I am sorry, the overall budget for 
this Nation, the President of the United States, the President of the 
Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget in the House, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget in the 
Senate, not one of them has spent one second in the uniform of our 
country. It does not surprise me that they do not think this is 
important. They never did.
  We have to ask ourselves, what is going to be our legacy? President 
Jefferson has the legacy of sending Lewis and Clark out to chart the 
American West and the Louisiana Purchase as a result of it. Earlier in 
this century an America that thought they could do anything anywhere 
built the Panama Canal.
  What is this committee's legacy? I am sorry to say it is treading 
water. Treading water because we know we have an op tempo problem and 
yet we could not find the money, the rest of the Congress would not 
give us the money to properly budget the use of the Guard and Reserve 
so that we could give some of the standing force a break.
  We know we have health care problems, not only for active duty, but 
for our retirees. We know we could fix that with Medicare subvention 
for about $2 billion a year, yet the rest of the Congress will not let 
us do that.

                              {time}  2245

  Every single American over the age of 65 now gets health care, but 
those people who were promised it in return for serving their country 
for 20 years, they are being turned away at the base hospital for lack 
of funds. That is not right.
  A brilliant plan was put together by our Armed Forces for a mail 
order pharmacy plan for our retirees, and for lack of funds it will not 
be put into effect.
  There are still 12,000 fine young Americans in uniform who have to 
get food stamps in order to feed their kids. That is wrong. It costs 
about $100 million to fix it, yet the rest of the Congress will not 
give this committee the money to fix it.
  Let me make this perfectly clear. I think this committee is 
bipartisan. The people who care about the military are on this 
committee. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans, they care. The 
problem is, what is happening with the other 435? Where are they for 
the thing that should count the most? Where will they be when someone 
launches a biological attack on our Nation and we are not ready to 
respond?
  If Members do not think it could happen, they should pick up a book 
called The Cobra Event. Our Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General 
Wesley Clark, made his staff read it because it is so believable.
  What is good about the bill? Something that I think is important is 
we are going to return to separate gender training at the basic level. 
A kid going to boot camp goes from being a high school senior, where he 
is on top of the world, to suddenly he cannot do or she cannot do 
anything right. They are, in my opinion, at their most vulnerable. When 
they are at their most vulnerable, we do not need them being led by a 
sexual predator. By separating the sexes, by separating the gender of 
the people running them through boot camp, we can minimize the 
opportunity for that to go wrong. We can get our drill instructors back 
to doing their job and our troops going back to basic training.
  We restore the funding for the Youth Challenge Program, a beautiful 
program by the National Guard that takes at-risk youth between the ages 
of 16 and 19 years old and gives them a General Equivalency Diploma. 
They go through a boot-camp-type environment and get themselves drug-
free. To date, on a nationwide basis, 96 percent of those kids have 
gone on to get a job, join the American military, or further their 
education.
  As the Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), pointed 
out, we have done as good as we could on procurement: stepped forward 
funding for LST8, 3 DDGs and some Navy vessels.
  But, again, as he mentioned, there are 900 Huey aircraft that we will 
not allow to fly because we are afraid that they and the crews in them 
will fall out of the sky, because the rest of this Congress is not 
putting forward enough funds to defend our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to ask ourselves, what will be our legacy as 
Members of Congress? We are only here for so long. We need to do the 
best we can with what we have.
  My challenge to all of us, Democrats and Republicans, is not to fight 
with each other but spread the message to the rest of the Congress that 
this has to be our Nation's greatest priority, because nothing else 
matters if we cannot defend ourselves.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Research and Development.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank 
our distinguished committee chairman,

[[Page H3475]]

who is one of our outstanding leaders in this body on issues involving 
national security and support for our troops and our veterans, and the 
ranking member.
  The two of them are a dynamic team. They work together. They both 
come from the same common perspective on the defense for this Nation, 
and they really set the right tone for the committee. It is because of 
their leadership that we had a 50 to 1 vote to get our bill out of 
committee, and most of our subcommittees likewise had very solid votes 
in reporting out their portions of this bill, so I want to applaud both 
of them and all the members of our committee who work so well together 
on the issue of our country's national security.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise for this brief period of time to say that, 
unfortunately, I think we are facing a train wreck unlike any that we 
have seen, certainly in the 12 years I have been in Congress and I 
think really in the history of this country, involving national 
security. The train wreck is being caused by, unfortunately, a number 
of things coming together all at one time. I think it is going to peak 
at around the turn of the century.
  I want to go through that briefly. The American people have been led 
to believe that we are spending so much more money on defense today 
than we have in the past. I use a simple comparison. When John Kennedy 
was President, it was a time of relative peace. It was after Korea and 
before Vietnam. We were spending 52 cents of every tax dollar on the 
military, 9 percent of our GNP. In this year's budget we are spending 
16 cents of the Federal tax dollar on the military, about 2.9 percent 
of our GNP on defense. So, in fact, the relative percentage of total 
Federal dollars on the military has dwindled dramatically. This is the 
14th consecutive year of real cuts in defense spending.
  Unfortunately, as that defense number comes down, some other things 
have happened. First of all, in John Kennedy's era, we had the draft. 
Young people were taken out of high school, they served the country for 
2 years, and they were paid far below the minimum wage. They were not 
married. They did not have the expenses a married person would have.
  That is not the case today. We have an all-volunteer force, well-
educated, maybe with college degrees, many married and with children, 
education costs, housing costs, transportation costs to move these 
families around the world, so a much larger percentage of that smaller 
amount of money goes for the quality of life of our troops.
  Mr. Chairman, we know we are always going to fund quality of life for 
our troops. But some other things have occurred since the John Kennedy 
era. In the last 6 years alone, Mr. Chairman, we have seen our troops 
deployed 25 times at home and abroad. That is a lot of deployments.
  Let us compare the last 6 years to the previous 40 years, where our 
troops were only deployed 10 times. In these 25 deployments in the last 
6 years, while defense spending has gone down dramatically, none of 
those deployments have been budgeted for. So to pay for all those 
deployments, Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and the domestic deployments here 
at home, we have had to take money out of the modernization of the next 
generation of equipment to support our troops. We have had to rob the 
R&D accounts. In fact, Bosnia alone will have cost us, by the end of 
this fiscal year, $9.4 billion.
  We are facing a crisis, Mr. Chairman. We do not have the money to put 
into modernization. We do not have the money for R&D. The President 
says, close more bases. We are not going to get around to base closing 
because the process was politicized 3 years ago.

  All of this happens at a time when, in the year 2000, we are being 
asked to fund a new aircraft carrier, a new attack submarine, DD-21s. 
We are being asked to fund three new tactical aviation programs, the F-
22, the joint strike fighter, and the F/A-18 E&F, the Commanche for the 
Army, the V-22 for the Marine Corps. We are being asked to fund 
national missile defense, theater missile defense systems, none of 
which are properly budgeted. For the Army after next, digitize the 
battlefield, and give the Navy the spy war system they need to get on 
the cutting edge of technology. In addition, we are being asked by the 
Defense Science Board to put $4 million more into information warfare, 
and we are being asked to put more money into antiterrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, all of those factors add up to disaster. By the turn of 
the century, if this Congress does not begin to address defense in a 
realistic way, this country is going to be in for a rude awakening. In 
fact, some of our generals are already telling us, as we had General 
Tilelli come in and General Prueher of the U.S. Pacific Command. U.S. 
Pacific Command reported deficiencies in six of the eight measured 
areas that they have responsibility for. The Navy's U.S. Pacific fleet 
has only 73 percent of the young sailors it needs.
  There is an almost 10 percent shortage in Navy noncommissioned 
officers. The Hawaii-based fleet lacks 1,900 sailors who have key 
technical skills. The Air Force units in the Pacific area, a serious 
manning shortage, which we can correct in the short term.
  We do not have enough spare parts. We have some air wings where one-
third of the planes are not flying because we have cannibalized them to 
keep the other two-thirds flying. This same pattern exists for both the 
Army and the Marine Corps.
  Mr. Chairman, we are doing the best we can this year in an impossible 
budget situation, but this Congress had better understand that if we do 
not change direction and begin to put some additional dollars into the 
defense of this country to modernize and take care of our R&D needs, or 
if we do not begin to reduce the deployment level, or get our allies to 
put more money on the table to pay for these deployments, we are going 
to face I think one of the most politically damaging situations that 
this country will have ever faced involving national security.
  I urge my colleagues to pay attention to this debate tomorrow on this 
bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of this bill. I want to thank 
both the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for their 
hard work to produce the best budget possible in this time of ever-
increasing defense budgets.
  Although I believe the committee produced a good bill under the 
circumstances, I also believe this Nation is not providing enough for 
national defense. If we continue on the course set out in the balanced 
budget agreement, the national security of this Nation will be 
jeopardized. This is the 14th straight year of real declines in the 
defense budget. The fiscal year 1999 defense budget request represents 
the lowest real level of U.S. spending since before the Korean War.
  Although I do not endorse a $400 billion budget like those of the 
1980s, I do believe that this budget and the ones planned for the next 
5 years are critically insufficient to maintain a strong military with 
a decent quality of life for the personnel and high-tech weapons needed 
to protect our country and defeat any enemy.
  Not only is the funding level too low, but the size of our force is 
insufficient for all of the missions they are being required to 
accomplish. As an example, Army deployments have increased 300 percent 
since 1989. The Army is currently funded at 488,000 soldiers. The 
budget request only provided for 480,000. How can we expect the Army to 
handle an increase of 300 percent with these continued decreases in the 
end strength?
  At a time when the Army deployments are the highest in history, I 
believe it is ill-advised to endorse decreasing the end strength of our 
Army. Our Army is losing outstanding young men and women, both enlisted 
and officers, because they are away from home far too often. When they 
are home, they are required to work long hours and not spend quality 
time with their families. Because of the strain and the pressure, many 
choose to end marriages or, as an alternative, to save marriages by 
leaving the service.
  Our soldiers should not be forced to make such unacceptable choices. 
It appears that the United States military operations throughout the 
world are

[[Page H3476]]

not decreasing. As such, reducing the end strength of the Army can only 
exacerbate this problem.
  I am one of those many current and former soldiers who believes that 
the Army should be maintained at a minimum level of 500,000. Of course, 
this strength level also requires an increase in the Department of 
Defense budget.
  I also want to remind this Congress of our duty to protect our 
military personnel. Although the Cold War has ended, new and different 
threats have emerged. It is our duty to ensure that the weapons systems 
to protect our soldiers in the field are sufficiently funded.
  One of the greatest current and future threats is from weapons of 
mass destruction delivered on short- and medium-range ballistic and 
cruise missiles. Countries throughout the world are working feverishly 
to develop or procure the technology to deliver these types of weapons.
  We talk about our concerns with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Libya, 
but what about other countries? India's actions last week should serve 
as a wake-up call that there are other nations to watch and that 
countries may be closer to obtaining the technology than we are aware 
of. We must continue to support theater missile defense programs to 
ensure that we deploy systems to defend against these threats as soon 
as possible.
  I believe that my colleagues should support this bill before us, but 
I also urge this Congress and the administration to work together and 
increase the budget for the Department of Defense.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  (Mr. Rodriguez asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, thank the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) for giving the 
opportunity to me to serve on that committee, and also to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Ike Skelton) for allowing me also to work with him.
  Let me just share two concerns that I have with the existing bill, 
and I think they are very important. One of the first ones is the fact, 
and I was real disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not allow 
an opportunity for the language that would have struck out the 
segregation language that exists in the bill. I think we have a real 
serious problem in that particular bill if we are going to segregate 
women. We are going in the wrong direction in that area.

                              {time}  2300

  When we talk about separate but equal, it was not equal for blacks, 
and I can assure my colleagues that it is not going to be equal for 
women. There is a need for us and I would ask the leadership to ask the 
Committee on Rules to reconsider that opportunity. If not, then I would 
ask the leadership and the conference committee that as they go into 
the conference with the Senate, that they strike out that language 
because I think it is very detrimental.
  When we hear the arguments as it deals with the separate but equal 
doctrine and what we want to do with women in the military, I think 
that I hear what I used to recall back in the 1960s, when we talked 
about co-ed education in our universities and some of the same 
language, and it is unfortunate that that is the case.
  I want to also share with my colleagues an additional concern that I 
have as it deals with cost. I know we have had a great number of 
individuals come up here and talk about the need for more resources. We 
also need to look in terms of the language and what it is in there.
  Number one, I want you to look very specifically as it deals with the 
C-17 language. That particular language, number one, sets a very 
negative precedent. Number two, it is extremely costly, and number 
three, when it comes to readiness, puts us in danger. I want to be able 
to share a little bit with you when it comes to the President.
  At this particular time, the language that we have there begins to 
tell the Department of Defense what should be core and what should not. 
As you well know, the last time we did the piece of legislation, we 
indicated that that is the responsibility of the Department of Defense, 
not the Congress. I think we are setting a very negative precedent.
  Secondly, as it deals with cost, one of the estimates is $500 million 
in terms of the cost just by that particular amendment alone in terms 
of what it is doing, not to mention that if you begin to move the C-17 
work from the private sector where it is right now into the depots, we 
are going to have a situation that it might be up to $1.5- to $2 
billion in cost. So I would ask you seriously to look at that language 
and be able to take that into consideration when you make those 
decisions.
  Thirdly, I think we are all concerned about readiness so that if, as 
we move, and if you look at that language on the C-17, when it comes to 
the readiness issue, it really sets a situation in which the depots are 
not ready to deal with that. They have not been working with that. As 
Members well know, one of the engines is a commercial engine on the 
commercial flights, and moving them towards that would be extremely 
costly and, in terms of readiness, is going to cause a situation where 
it might take a year and a half to 2 to 3 years before we would even be 
capable, not to mention the cost of $ 1.5- to $2 billion, so that as we 
talk about cost and our concerns regarding readiness and regarding 
other options, we also need to look at the existing language that is 
extremely detrimental.
  I would ask that you consider those options as we move forward as it 
deals with the language on the C-17 and again on the previous item that 
I had talked to you on the segregation of the armed forces and not 
allowing the women to have equal opportunity. If we expect them to be 
able to participate, they should be able to practice.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express concern with a provision in the 
Defense Authorization bill regarding the maintenance of the C-17 cargo 
aircraft. The provision added in committee will significantly increase 
the costs of maintaining the C-17 by potentially billions of dollars. 
This increased cost will likely reduce the procurement of future C-17 
aircraft, decrease Air Force readiness and airlift capability, and 
force the Air Force to hire more acquisition personnel. The C-17 is 
essential for our nation's sustained global power projection and the 
future backbone of our expeditionary force.
  Specifically, the bill preempts the Secretary of Defense's authority 
to determine what systems of the C-17 must be maintained in-house, 
abrogating the depot provisions adopted in last years defense bill. The 
C-17 provision structures weapons systems support without regard to Air 
Force readiness requirements; hobbles partnerships and competition 
essential for maximizing limited budgets, and delays defense 
acquisition reforms.
  For years Congress called on the Department of Defense to implement 
acquisition reform. The C-17 program is a prime example of the 
Department's acquisition reform advances in significantly reducing the 
life cycle costs of new aircraft. However, this bills restrictive C-17 
provision will reverse those advances. In addition, last years 
authorization bill attempted to reduce the Department of Defense's 
acquisition workforce, or ``professional shoppers,'' by 25,000. 
However, this bill would require the Air Force to hire hundreds more of 
professional shoppers rather than streamlining the bureaucracy.
  Other fiscally irresponsible aspects of the C-17 provision discourage 
public-private partnerships that would save taxpayers millions of 
dollars while maintaining a high mission-capable rate for the C-17. The 
bill forces the Air Force to waste more than $500 million to create in-
house maintenance capabilities before an intelligent decision can be 
made on this new weapon system. In addition, the engine on the C-17 is 
a commercial engine developed for the Boeing 757. To create an in-house 
capability for the engine, which the authorization would, would cost 
the Air Force between $1 billion and $2 billion for the purchase of 
propriety data alone.
  In today's constrained defense budget, we cannot expect the 
Department of Defense to come up with billions of additional dollars to 
maintain the C-17 in an antiquated manner that doesn't capitalize on 
the strengths of both the public and private sector and advances in 
manufacturing. The C-17 was efficiently designed to be maintained on 
the flight line to reduce maintenance costs. The billions of dollars 
the C-17 provision would likely decrease procurement of future C-17 
aircraft. This is totally unacceptable.
  In closing, Congress should not preempt the warfighter on the 
decision of maintenance of the C-17, the C-17 provision will force the 
Air Force to spend billions on the tail instead of the essential tooth, 
and the measure will have a detrimental impact on readiness.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H3477]]

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to add a word or two. Out of this early general debate 
this evening, it does appear that there is a bipartisan consensus in 
favor of doing better for our national security. It is a matter of 
resources. It is a matter of spending. In this good bill, we have, as 
has been said, we have done well with what we had, but I think there is 
that growing understanding that we need to place national security at 
the top of the list, and I hope that this debate has brought the 
attention to the other Members of this body as well as to those others 
who are interested.
  I have a couple of other messages, Mr. Chairman. One is to the, if 
they were here in front of me, parents of the young men and young women 
in uniform. I would tell them that they should be so very, very proud 
of what their family members are doing. They are professionals. They 
are dedicated. Their operational tempo at times is horrendous, and yet 
they are doing what their Nation is calling upon them to do without 
complaining as committed young Americans. So I would tell them, Mr. 
Chairman, that I and all of us on this committee thank them for their 
efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, if the young people in uniform were sitting here 
watching us this evening, I would have a message for them as well. My 
message to them would be to stay the course. If they are in the Navy, 
steady as you go, because they are so very, very important to the 
future of our country, to the national security of our country, to 
where we are as the world leader bringing stability to the various 
corners of this globe. I would tell them not to get discouraged. I 
would tell them that sooner or later they will write some brilliant 
pages in the history books of this country. Those would be my two 
messages, Mr. Chairman. I am proud of the young folks in uniform. I 
hope they stay the course, not to get discouraged but to know how so 
very, very important they are.
  I again thank the members of this committee, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence), the Chairman. This has been an absolute thrill 
for me to be the ranking member on this committee, and I appreciate the 
courtesies that he has extended to me personally and that the entire 
committee has extended to those of us on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. The 
Committee has worked hard to develop a good, bipartisan bill, and I 
commend our chairman and ranking member for their leadership.
  The Cold War is long gone, Mr. Chairman, but the world is still a 
dangerous place. Look at the nuclear tests last week in India. Look at 
the advanced ballistic missiles under development in Iran. Dangers can 
emerge anywhere, and with little warning. I think this bill reflects a 
determination to maintain our position of strength within that 
uncertain world.
  No bill is perfect, and this bill is no exception. Consider the fact 
that our military is finding it increasingly difficult to get 
permission to use forward bases. This calls for an increased emphasis 
on power projection.
  To me, that means the B-2 Bomber, which can strike any target in the 
world from Whitman Air Force Base, Missouri, within 24 hours. It also 
means the Super Hornet, which offers a leap ahead in naval aviation 
attack capabilities over the aging planes on carrier decks today. But 
the B-2 production line has been allowed to close, and three Super 
Hornet aircraft were cut from the request this year.
  I think we could have done more to increase the efficiency of the 
Defense Department--to squeeze savings out of the bureaucracy that we 
could use for more modern weapons systems. I know that this body takes 
defense reform seriously, though, and will continue to pursue it, if 
not in this bill.
  I am particularly troubled by a couple of signals this bill sends to 
women.
  First, it perpetuates the policy of barring women serving overseas 
from using their own funds to obtain legal abortion services in 
military hospitals. Women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces 
already give up many freedoms and risk their lives to defend our 
country. They should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health, 
and their basic constitutional rights to a policy with no valid 
military purposes.
  Second, the bill prejudges its own congressionally-created commission 
studying basic training and instead forces the services to segregate 
men and women.
  Such a requirement is premature, may affect unit cohesion and 
readiness, and will not address the serious problems of sexual 
misconduct and harassment confronting the services.
  The segregated training provision is opposed by the Army, Navy and 
Air Force. All believe that the best way to train soldiers, sailors and 
airmen is to ``train the way we fight.'' That means in integrated 
units.
  As Navy Vice Chief of Staff Admiral Pilling testified before the 
Personnel Subcommittee, if men and women do not learn how to live and 
work together during basic training, are the confined quarters aboard 
ship the next-best place? I think not.
  The provision is also opposed by the top enlisted men of all four 
services, including the sergeant major of the Marine Corps, Lewis G. 
Lee.
  And implementing the segregated living requirements required with the 
bill is expensive--$159 million for the Army alone. It is deeply 
troubling that, at a time of increasingly scarce resources, the 
Committee has opted for this expensive and unnecessary course of 
action.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, in my view, the long term consequences of this 
provision will be to roll back opportunities for women in the military. 
It will reduce training resources for female recruits. And it will not 
reduce the incidents of sexual harassment and misconduct.
  Nearly 50 years ago, the Supreme Court told us that ``separate but 
equal'' is inherently unequal. Mr. Chairman, I regret the Committee has 
failed to recognize this admonition.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 1999 
National Defense Authorization Act. I particularly want to thank 
Chairman Spence, Procurement Subcommittee Chairman Hunter, and Research 
and Development Subcommittee Chairman Weldon for their very hard work 
to produce a bill that meets the needs of our armed services at a time 
when overall defense spending is in its fourteenth year of real 
decline.
  H.R. 3616 conforms to the defense spending limits established in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. However, I share Chairman Spence's and the 
defense community's concerns that these funding levels are inadequate 
to meet the increasing number of threats to our national security.
  If you question the need to strengthen America's defenses, just take 
a look around the world:
  Unstable and unfriendly nations around the world are developing 
medium and long range missile capabilities that directly threaten U.S. 
forces deployed abroad, and may pose a threat to the continental U.S. 
in the near future.
  India and Pakistan are engaged in a nuclear arms race that could 
destabilize all of South Asia.
  U.S. forces are still in Bosnia, with no end to that operation in 
sight.
  And, Saddam Hussein is continuing to ignore the terms and conditions 
that Iraq agreed to at the end of the Persian Gulf War.
  Moreover, serious personnel problems are emerging throughout the 
services. Readiness has been sacrificed as the size of our military has 
been reduced. Morale and retention are low as quality of life issues 
are ignored or postponed in order to pay for ongoing operations.
  Our military is nothing without our brave service men and women, and 
they need to know they have this Congress' strong support.
  Strong support also means the best weapons available. This is why it 
is so important that the committee included funding for two F-16s, 
eight V-22s, two F-22s, and continued R&D for the multi-service, multi-
role joint strike fighter.
  Many members may not realize that procurement of new weapons systems 
have declined by 70 percent over the last decade. These are the very 
weapons that were crucial to winning the Persian Gulf War. This is why 
it is essential to maintain the F-16, which is the workhorse of the Air 
Force's fighter fleet, and to proceed with procurement of innovative 
new planes like the V-22 and the F-22.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support passage of H.R. 3616, 
and I want to thank Chairman Spence, and the other subcommittee 
chairman, once again, for all of their hard work on this legislation.
  But, I also want to warn my colleagues that our national security 
cannot be taken for granted. Current defense levels cannot be sustained 
at the funding levels contained in the budget, and we cannot wait for a 
crisis situation to revisit this issue.
  I am looking forward to working with Chairman Spence, and other 
concerned members, to improve the condition of our armed forces and to 
ensure that our military remains the best fighting force in the world.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Moran of Kansas) having assumed the chair, Mr.

[[Page H3478]]

Pease, Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 3616) to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 1999 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1999, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________