[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 129 (Thursday, September 24, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H8558-H8571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3616, STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 549 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 549

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Solomon) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would like at this point, before we begin 
debate, to acknowledge the presence on the floor of our colleague, the 
dean of the Texas delegation (Henry Gonzalez) who has been ill for the 
last year but who has returned to be with us during these closing days 
of the session.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, from this side of the aisle, we would like 
to say hello to the dean of the Texas delegation and welcome him back. 
He is one of the most respected Members of this body.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield half our time to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 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, this resolution makes in order the consideration of the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 3616, the Strom Thurmond National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. The rule waives all 
points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration, and it provides that the conference report shall be 
considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule will enable the House to proceed with the 
expeditious consideration of the conference report for the Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, the most important bill that 
Congress is called upon to enact each and every year.
  I do note right here at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that the conferees 
have dedicated this legislation to Senator Strom Thurmond. And that, I 
believe, is something unprecedented, to name a bill after a Member who 
is still in office.
  The preamble to this conference report cites Senator Thurmond's 
various services to the Nation, and he is certainly deserving of this 
singular honor. Here is a man who went into Normandy with the 82nd 
Airborne Division on D-Day, back during World War II, and still, today, 
54 years later, he continues to serve our country as chairman of the 
very important Senate Committee on Armed Services, a committee on which 
he has been a member for 40 years. Forty years. Strom Thurmond has 
truly had a unique and influential career in service to the country, 
and we salute him here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to pay tribute to our colleague from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the Committee on National 
Security, and equally commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), the ranking member of the committee. They are truly two of 
the most respected, outstanding Members of this body. They do, year in 
and year out, yeoman work on this extremely, extremely important 
measure. These gentlemen have served our country with distinction. Not 
for as long as Strom Thurmond has, but nobody else has, but they are 
certainly no less able and certainly no less dedicated. We appreciate 
the outstanding work that they and the conferees have done on this 
report.
  And their staffs are to be commended as well. A lot of people do not 
know how much staff work goes into something as important as this, and 
on both sides of the aisle they are truly outstanding. They have made 
the very most of what they were given to work with, the budget ceilings 
being what they are, which we all object to.
  This conference report is the product of a genuine bipartisan effort. 
It has, I am informed, been signed by every conferee, and that is 
highly unusual in itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I, for one, want to pay particular tribute to what the 
conferees have done in addressing the readiness problem. I know there 
are people who question how a $270 billion budget, when we are spending 
that much money, how it could still leave

[[Page H8559]]

us with a hollow military. And hollow it is, and getting worse by the 
day. Consider this: In a span of 31 years, from 1960 to 1991, the 
United States military conducted only 10 so-called operational events, 
deployments that took place outside our normal alliance and training-
related obligations. Only 10 in that 31-year period. But in only the 
last 7 years--and this is what is so, so cogent--since 1991, our 
military has conducted 26 operational events. The Marine Corps alone 
has conducted 62 contingency operations in the decade of the 1990s, 
compared to only 15 such operations in the decade of the 1980s.
  The ever-accelerating number of demands placed on our Armed Forces 
has occurred at a time when the military has been experiencing its most 
significant reductions since the end of World War II. Ten years ago we 
had over 2.2 million American men and women in uniform, over 2 million. 
By the end of 1999, that number will be less than 1.4 million. In the 
last 10 years, the number of Army divisions and Air Force fighter wings 
has been reduced by nearly half. The Navy has been reduced in size by 
more than one-third.
  Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that the strategic environment is 
significantly different today than it was a decade ago. But let us 
never, never be lulled into complacency or a false sense of security. 
We must never, ever allow our military to hollow out, as what happened 
in the 1970s. Many of my colleagues will recall, if they were here 
then, that we had American hostages being held in a place called Iran, 
and we attempted to rescue those hostages. To do that, the military 
equipment being in such bad condition, we had to cannibalize about 10 
helicopter gunships to get five that would work. Four of those failed, 
and so did the mission, and the rescue attempt went down the drain. 
That is the condition we were in in the 1970s.
  This is the third year in a row that the defense bill conferees have 
had to find additional funds for the important readiness accounts. On 
top of that, they have had to face enormous pressures in balancing the 
need between short-term readiness and the critical modernization and 
procurement requirements for which the administration has consistently 
requested funding that is well below its own forecast of what is 
necessary to keep our forces prepared and to give our young men and 
women the best possible strategic weaponry they can have if, God 
forbid, they ever have to be put in harm's way again. And we all know 
that that is inevitable. It always happens.
  And, finally, Mr. Speaker, let us never forget that we rely today on 
an all-voluntary military force. That is not going to change. Morale 
and quality of life are matters of vital importance to the young men 
and women in uniform today. Quality of life.
  I recall in the Marine Corps, when I served 40 years ago, 90 percent 
of us were single. We did not have families. Today, that is absolutely 
reversed. Most of the men and women today in the military are married, 
and we have to provide decent living quarters and decent standards of 
living for these young men and women.
  And, frankly, my colleagues, the combination of shrinking force 
structures, declining defense budgets, and the increased pace of 
operations is taking its toll. If Members will just go to any of the 
recruiting offices in any of their congressional districts, they will 
see that today we are having a problem recruiting a real cross-section 
of America to serve. And the reason is because they cannot depend on 
the military as a career. When we reduce our overall numbers from over 
2 million down to 1.4 million, where is the career for these young men 
and women? Where are we going to get this real cross-section of America 
to serve in our military? It is not easy. Go and check with the 
recruiters.
  The conferees are to be congratulated for addressing head-on the 
issues of health care, of retirement and compensation benefits, and 
living facilities that are of such concern to the all-voluntary force. 
Again, with what they were given to work with, with these budget 
limitations, they have done just an outstanding job. Our forces must be 
able to keep pace with their counterparts in civilian life if we are 
ever going to be able to maintain the kind of military that we want.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge strong support for the rule and for the 
conference report. Once again, the conferees are to be thanked for a 
job well, well done.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and this vital 
conference report. Providing for our common defense is one of the 
primary constitutional duties of the Congress, and this conference 
agreement seeks to fulfill that obligation within the constraints 
imposed by the balanced budget agreement. But as the ranking member of 
the Committee on National Security said last night when the Committee 
on Rules met to grant this rule, the task of trying to address the many 
issues affecting our Armed Forces was much more difficult this year 
than it has been in years past.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) makes a very good and very 
important point. Mr. Speaker, last week the Joint Chiefs and the 
unified combat commanders told the President that their increasing 
duties at home and abroad have placed enormous strains on each of the 
branches of the Armed Services and that the readiness and operational 
capabilities of the Services are suffering.
  As it was reported in The New York Times yesterday, the commanders 
told the President that funding shortfalls have eroded their readiness 
to fight and win the next war, have led to shortages of spare parts for 
war planes, cuts in training, and difficulties in recruiting and 
keeping qualified troops. Mr. Speaker, this bill attempts to address 
those shortfalls, but it is abundantly clear that defense spending must 
increase in future years.
  I am especially pleased to learn that the administration has taken 
the warnings of the Joint Chiefs to heart and that the President 
intends to propose adding $1 billion to the emergency supplemental to 
address some of the shortfalls outlined to him, and that the President 
has also indicated his support for a significant increase in military 
spending in the coming fiscal year.
  I would certainly endorse those increases in military spending to 
ensure that our military might and superiority does not suffer 
needlessly. I want to congratulate Secretary Cohen and General Shelton 
for their ongoing commitment to the men and women in uniform who serve 
our Nation and their commitment to a strong and vital military.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report does a good job within the 
constraints of the Balanced Budget Act, which has capped spending for 
the Department of Defense. The conference report addresses pressing 
needs in improvement in pay and allowances, family and troop housing, 
improved medical care and education for military dependents. These 
improvements are key if we are to keep family men and women in our 
Armed Forces.
  This conference report increases funding for several categories of 
operations and maintenance as well as readiness and recruiting. These 
funding increases are critical to maintaining our military superiority 
in all corners of the globe.
  This conference report also provides $279.9 million in funding for 
post-production support of the B-2 bomber fleet, $2.2 billion for 
research and development, and advance procurement for the F-22 Raptor 
fighter. The Raptor is the 21st century attack fighter that will ensure 
the air superiority and maintain the air dominance of the Air Force.
  The conference agreement also authorizes $742.8 million for the 
acquisition of 8 V-22s, which will replace the aging Marine Corps 
helicopter fleet to ensure our combat troops can be ferried quickly and 
efficiently to combat situations.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill that deserves the support of the 
House. The men and women who serve their country deserve the best this 
Congress can give them. While these funding limits may not be able to 
give the Department of Defense everything it needs, this conference 
agreement does a great deal to ensure our most critical priorities are 
addressed. I urge adoption of this rule and the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H8560]]

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San 
Diego, California (Mr. Duke Cunningham).
  He is a true patriot. He was a naval aviator fighter pilot in 
Vietnam, and the movie Top Gun was based on his heroic deeds. I do not 
mind leaving this Congress at the end of this year because we are going 
to have people like him here. He is a great American.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time, my Marine Corps friend, but let me state one 
thing in correction. The movie Top Gun was not based on my life. There 
were several of the scenes based on real-life events. We never 
overstate in this business our qualifications. But I thank the 
gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a few things, and I think 
99\9/10\ percent is positive. There are some things in here on a 
bipartisan basis. I left the Committee on National Security, the 
authorization committee. It is show-me-the-dollars to the Committee on 
Appropriations, for defense. But the two committees work hand-in-hand. 
And one of the biggest reasons I hated leaving the Committee on 
National Security was my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ike 
Skelton), and the work we did there.
  But let me tell my colleagues a couple of things that we did, and I 
think things we need to do in the future as well. The gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. J.C. Watts), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mac 
Thornberry), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Jim Moran), the gentlemen 
I just spoke of, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ike Skelton), and 
myself fought to get FEHBP for our veterans. A worker in the Pentagon 
that is nonmilitary, after they retire, during Medicare they qualify 
for FEHBP. Someone we ask to fight our battles does not qualify, and 
that is wrong, Mr. Speaker, and we need to change that. But the folks I 
mentioned before fought for that.
  And I would also like to give thanks to a gentleman that we lost this 
year, and that is General Jim Pennington, who passed away, and this was 
one of his dreams, to bring FEHBP to veterans. He lived long enough to 
see this come to fruition in a pilot program, and we need to carry on 
with that as well.

                              {time}  1245

  After the Committee on National Security heard the classified 
briefings on Long Beach Naval Shipyard and the Communist Chinese 
Shipping Company, COSCO, there was a vote, I believe it was 45-4, to 
keep the Communist Chinese from taking over Long Beach. Now, I have 
never been against them staying as a tenant just like they are in other 
ports, but to give them absolute control when the reason we went into 
Afghanistan and some of our other sites, it was COSCO that shipped 
those chemical and biological and in some cases nuclear parts to those 
things from China, to give them access to Long Beach Naval Shipyard was 
just wrong, not access but complete control. That is in this bill.
  Something we worked on very diligently from a very bipartisan group 
called the Sportsmen's Caucus was the disabled sportsman. What we found 
is that a lot of our military bases are now opening up to disabled 
sportsmen. You can imagine being in a wheelchair and wanting to go 
fishing and you go out on a dock that does not have a handrail. This 
was also in the bill, in the disabled sportsman portion of it.
  Let me speak and say something to my colleagues. Very bipartisan 
committees, both the authorization and appropriation. Where we get 
outside of that is where I would like to speak to my friends that do 
not believe that we need more defense spending. We could survive under 
the balanced budget agreement with defense spending. But we cannot 
survive with that limited budget and then take 300 percent, the 
overseas deployments, and take those funds out of that already limited 
bill. The reason that we only have 24 percent of our military, of our 
enlisted staying in is family separation, and pilots are leaving in 
droves, the economy is good and they can get jobs on the outside. That 
experience is going. We are going to lose great numbers of airplanes 
over the next five years, even if we invest now. Because when you have 
your experience going out of your enlisted, your pilots are gone, you 
are having to take cannibalization. Oceana has four up jets, they 
normally have 45, because they are cannibalizing parts. So your 
training back here in the United States for your brand new pilots is 
very limited. All of these are factors in this readiness.
  I am happy that the President is going to put a billion dollars into 
the emergency supplemental. But the Joint Chiefs told him he needs $15 
billion over a period of time, and Shalikashvili said that we need to 
increase procurement spending by up to $60 billion. A billion dollars 
just will not do it over the long haul. I am thankful that the 
President and some of my colleagues realize that the Cold War is not 
totally over. I would like to thank both sides of the aisle for the 
bipartisan work on this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding time. First let me compliment the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules. This is the last time that the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spence) and I will be before the committee with the gentleman from 
New York as the presiding chairman. We wish him well and we thank him 
for his many, many efforts on behalf of the young men and women in 
uniform. We extend our heartfelt thanks to the gentleman from New York.
  Regarding the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), I thank him 
for his kind words. We know and hope that his work on the Committee on 
Appropriations will reflect the work that we on the authorization 
committee will do as it precedes the work on the appropriation efforts.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) mentioned the fact that the 
President has recognized that we need additional funding for our 
military. I am in receipt yesterday of a letter from the President 
wherein he stated that there will be the $1 billion in emergency 
recommendations. He also added that in the long run, there will be 
additional necessary funds for readiness.
  Let me share with this body that I am not a newcomer to this issue. I 
was concerned about readiness shortfall, concerned about spare part 
problems and concerned about some research and development and 
procurement several years ago. I embarked on a major effort to put 
together a military bill, a defense bill, from scratch. On March 22, 
1996, I appeared before the Committee on the Budget recommending 
additional funds for fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999. But of course 
those figures were not adopted. I am sending that budget to the 
President, to the Secretary and to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, 
because it might reflect what well is needed now, because there were 
shortfalls in those years and we find ourselves in a position of young 
people leaving, and spare parts and readiness is down. We need to do 
something about it. Now is the time for us to fulfill the pledge. We 
must take care of the troops. We must let them know we appreciate them, 
that we back what they are doing in their efforts, we will back their 
families, and we will allow there to be sufficient funds for training 
so they can be ready for any contingency that comes along. That is our 
job. We should not have to wait for the President to make the 
recommendation. It is good that one is coming forth. I have suggested 
to him a figure which I hope he will look to.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado Springs, CO (Mr. Hefley) another outstanding member of the 
Committee on National Security who has served on that committee for 
more than 10 years now.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, no Member in this House has been more 
supportive of a strong national defense than the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules has been since he has been here. We are going to 
miss him in that role. I am including even those of us who serve on the 
Committee on National Security. He has been such a stalwart. We 
appreciate that greatly. I think we should make the gentleman an 
honorary member of the Committee on National Security, if nothing else.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3616, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, and for

[[Page H8561]]

this good rule. The legislation is critically important to the defense 
of the Nation. It contains a needed military pay raise of 3.6 percent, 
an issue on which I am proud to say the Committee on National Security 
has been a leader. This legislation supports the readiness of the armed 
forces by providing an additional $900 million above the President's 
request to bolster underfunded training and readiness requirements. 
This bill would also strengthen export controls on extremely sensitive 
satellite and missile technology. This is a good bill. It is a good 
rule.
  I want to focus some attention on the part of the bill that I have 
worked the most on, and, that is, the military construction 
authorizations for the coming year. There is no question that the poor 
condition of military infrastructure continues to affect readiness and 
quality of life for military personnel and their families. This bill 
would authorize $8.4 billion for the military construction and family 
military housing programs of the Defense Department and the military 
services. This amount is $666 million more than the President's request 
and over 52 percent of that funding is dedicated to improving troop 
housing, military family housing, child development centers, physical 
fitness and other facilities that significantly affect the quality of 
life of military personnel and their families. The remainder supports 
either critical enhancements for training and readiness or to improve 
basic working conditions. This bill fully supports the MILCON 
appropriations agreement which passed the House 417-1 and was signed by 
the President over the weekend.
  For too long, military infrastructure has been ignored. It has been 
far too easy to put off needed investment in infrastructure on the 
assumption that one more year will not make a difference, that we can 
get by. The result of years of this neglect is a crumbling 
infrastructure which undermines readiness and housing that no one in 
this House would want their son or daughter living in. Over the past 
four years, Congress has struggled to find ways to fix the problem but 
from year to year we have been met by administration budget requests 
that continue to decline. The problem cannot be fixed by wishing it 
away.
  Earlier this week the President indicated a willingness to join those 
of us in Congress who have argued that defense spending must increase 
to meet critical shortfalls such as these. I hope we have finally 
turned the corner on shortfalls in the defense budget.
  I urge all Members to support this bipartisan legislation and to vote 
for a strong defense bill and to support this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from San 
Diego, CA (Mr. Hunter) another outstanding Member and an 18-year member 
of the Committee on National Security.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Solomon) for turning the Committee on Rules into an Armed Services 
Committee and then a National Security Committee. It has always been, I 
think, reassuring to Members on both sides of the aisle when we have 
had our bill moving through the process to know that the Committee on 
Rules was going to take up our bill under the leadership of a Member of 
Congress who finds that the constitutional duty to protect this country 
is of primacy. Whether he is in a Republican Conference, in an in-house 
conference or speaking to the full House or making sure that some 
important mission of the Committee on National Security works and is 
successful, the gentleman from New York has been a real fighter for a 
strong national defense.
  Along those lines, I think we are in some danger in this country. We 
have been telling the President as we boosted his defense budget every 
year on the Committee on National Security and then in the full body, 
we have increased President Clinton's budget, we have been telling him 
every year that we do not have enough, that we are losing people, that 
we have got pilot shortages, that we have got technical shortages. We 
now have sailor shortages in the Navy. We are losing people. We are 
building a navy at a rate which if you consider new construction will 
give us a 200-ship navy when we had a 600-ship navy just a few years 
ago. We are seeing the North Koreans now achieving ballistic missile 
capability that the CIA said they would not have for years, achieving 
that right now, and we have no defense against it. We have an army that 
has been cut from 18 to 10 divisions. We see a desperate need for 
stealthy, tactical aircraft and we do not have them. Yet we are trying 
to move that program along. I think we have cut defense perilously. Yet 
the President has rejected our overtures for the last four years.
  This year, I notice, if you read the papers now, President Clinton is 
now writing letters saying defense has been cut too much, that we have 
to do something about it. Mr. Speaker, we have done something about it 
in this bill with the very limited dollars that we have. Our great 
leader the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) on the Committee 
on National Security has assigned us all our various areas. I have 
worked on modernization. We have tried to increase the tactical fighter 
program. We have tried to put money in the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-
22. We have added extra shipbuilding money. We desperately need more. 
We have moved out on missile defense. We have tried to take steps, 
although they have been small steps, in a number of areas that are 
absolutely national priority with respect to national defense. The best 
thing we can do right now is pass this conference report and then 
regroup and put an additional 10 or 20 or $30 billion a year in our 
national defense, do what we have to do to remain the supreme military 
power in the world and also have the ability to meet the new threat of 
terrorism.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I 
come to the floor with a sense of both relief and concern, relief that 
this bill, this rule, the bill underlying this rule no longer requires 
sex segregation in the armed forces; concern that it does express a 
sense of the House that sex segregation return to the armed forces of 
the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that says ``if you don't know 
something, you better ask somebody.'' I hope we will listen to those 
who do know something about this complicated issue. A report is due in 
March from military experts. Meanwhile, the armed services have told us 
that sex-integrated training is safest and best for our country. 
Perhaps that is to be turned around. We certainly should not move in 
advance of that. Training, it seems to me, is precisely where women and 
men should first meet. Delay puts both at risk if for the first time 
you meet the opposite sex after you have been trained when you may be 
in a theater of war or elsewhere in danger.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, I hope that our country has learned after all these 
years that there ought to be a profound presumption against segregation 
based on race or sex. The Armed Services deserves credit for the great 
success they have made of gender-integrated training. The top enlisted 
men of all four Armed Services opposed gender-segregated training, and 
I want to quote the Chief Master Sergeant of the Armed Forces who says, 
we have done the job and we have done it with men and women serving 
together. I am confounded as to what the problem is.
  I am, too, Mr. Speaker, and I hope we will stick with what we have.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just briefly let me say that the previous speaker is 
held in the highest esteem by me. But she and I certainly differ, as my 
colleagues know, on this issue.
  As my colleagues know, our military is there to fight a war, and our 
military does not come under the laws of the land. They come under the 
Military Code of Justice, and there is a reason for that.
  There are exceptions when men and women can train together. There are 
those of us that believe that women should never be put in combat under 
any circumstances, and some of us will never change our mind on that.
  But the truth of the matter is we cannot take young men and women, 18 
years old, first time away from home and integrate them into training. 
It just does not work, and I think the bill

[[Page H8562]]

speaks to that, although not as much as I would like to see.
  And, having said that, I am going to yield to the next speaker, who 
is someone I deeply admire and respect.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Monticello, 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer), who is young, a relatively new Member of our 
Congress. He is a subcommittee chairman on the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel and has done such an outstanding job in working with the 
private sector commissions that have been looking into this matter, and 
he is also a Major in the Army Reserve, and I salute him.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I just would like to share with everyone there is a 
reason, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, as we 
have looked into this issue on the separation of gender, whether it is 
the small unit level or in training, the gentlewoman who just spoke 
before me used the word ``segregation.'' She used the word 
``segregation'' for a reason, to taint the argument and to go back to 
the issues on segregation, on race.
  The issue here is separation of gender at the small unit level. We 
sought to return the Air Force back to the way they had been doing it 
for over 20 years. Just this past July when, in fact, those of whom 
argued for integration of the sexes have held out the Air Force as the 
model, we sought to take them back to the model, and for some reason 
now they are overembellishing in their argument on saying we have 
somehow taken steps back, that this will be a segregation of the sexes 
just as though it has been segregation of the races. That is ba-looie. 
I do not even have the word to properly describe that.
  We sought the Kassebaum-Baker. This was a bipartisan panel. 
Individuals of great diversity in their ideology looked at this and 
said unanimously that we need to separate at the small unit level, 
which means flights in the Air Force, platoons in the Army, divisions 
in the Navy, and we sought to follow the Kassebaum panel, and I applaud 
this is the sense of this House, to follow the Kassebaum panel.
  Now there is in law with regard to the separation by a permanent wall 
of the gender. As my colleagues know, for some reason, it has lost 
America's attention here all of a sudden. Great Lakes, where they do 
naval training, just had a conviction, and it was very ugly, no 
different than what had happened at Aberdeen, where we had a drill 
sergeant that was preying upon young women. This has to cease in 
America's Armed Forces.
  And I will tell my colleagues I will not, and I am very careful 
because I know that there are some who are using that as saying, well, 
that is the reason we need women out of the military, and I will tell 
my colleagues what. That is false. So long as I chair the Subcommittee 
on Military Personnel we cannot deploy without women in the ranks. The 
issue goes to at what level and under what requirements can they serve, 
whether it is the ground combat function.
  Now let me address the issues that are of concern to me. Right now, I 
applaud the President stepping forward and giving a recommendation 
about the plus-up of $1 billion, but I would disagree with my good 
friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who just said on the 
House floor that we should not have to wait for the President to 
recommend. Excuse me. This is the President responding to Congress who 
is taking the lead, who is alerting America about the depletions of our 
military readiness and our capabilities to respond to the national 
military strategy of two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. 
Let us be up front with our allies throughout the world right now.
  I just returned from San Diego a couple of weeks ago. My colleagues, 
we have ships that are being deployed at what is called C-2 readiness 
levels. It used to be ships would go out as C-1, fully manned. They are 
C-2 plus one sailor, which means when somebody gets hurt in the 
workplace they are really under C-3 status.
  So what we are doing here is we say we have a problem with regard to 
recruiting in the Navy. No kidding. We have a problem with recruiting 
in the Navy. It happens when we are asking our sailors to do more with 
less, when we have 10 people that may have worked in a particular room, 
now there are five, and they are working longer hours, and there is a 
spiral here. Some are saying, well, I am out of here; I am out of the 
Navy.
  Well, I tell my colleagues what. When people are leaving the Navy, 
those are the best recruiters that we have, and when we lose those 
quality of individuals, they are returning to their communities, and we 
want them to tell the good sailor story, not the bad sailor story.
  So part of that billion dollars, I say to the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton), and I know he will be a strong advocate, will stop this 
downward spiral to improve recruiting and retention in the Navy.
  But now let me share with my colleagues here 3 o'clock this afternoon 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and I have to hold a 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing. Why? The ink is not even 
dry on this conference report, and the Surgeon Generals have alerted me 
that there is a $600 million shortfall in the medical readiness budget. 
We are about to vote on this, and people are going to claim, well, this 
is an adequate budget. Now, and I can hardly believe this, my 
colleagues, now I am being alerted that there is a $600 million 
shortfall in the medical budget.
  Now the DOD, the administration's position is, well, it is not that 
bad, it is around 200 million, depends on what modeling of budgeting 
being used. Two hundred million, 600 million, one cannot run a business 
this way. So I am very distressed.
  So when the President says, here is a billion dollars, a billion just 
is not going to cut it. This readiness shortfall on the hollowing out 
of the force is much greater, and let us not kid anyone.
  So I want to work with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and 
I will work with the chairman with regard to the medical readiness 
shortfall. I will get to the bottom of this this afternoon, and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and I both will report to our 
colleagues on our findings from this hearing.
  But there is a good story to tell, and I agree with the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I love to hear him talk about his warmth 
and his compassion and his sympathy for those who are burning the night 
oil, who stand on watch so that we can enjoy our peace and freedoms, 
and God bless him so long as he is in this position because he tells a 
great soldier story along with the chairman.
  There is something else I have to share with my colleagues. I have 
had the true pleasure of having a dear friend on the Armed Services 
Committee, now the Committee on National Security, in the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale). He has been my dear friend since I 
first walked into this institution, perhaps because we are both 
comrades from the Gulf War experience. He now is a lieutenant colonel 
as a Marine reservist.
  As my colleagues know, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) 
has been under attack by the administration. That has been unfortunate. 
But the gentleman from Pennsylvania, when Sonny Montgomery left, he and 
I stepped forward into the breach and formed a Reserve Components 
Caucus, and we were able to make great strides in working with the 
administration over some disagreements between whether it is the 
National Guard and the Reservists. There should be a seamless military 
under these concepts, and we have worked very, very hard, whether it is 
with regard to the budgeting, whether it is in regard to benefits.
  And I just want to share with the body, working with the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) is a distinct honor and it was a 
distinct privilege because he was always focused in the right direction 
on what are the requirements of the Marine in the field, the sailor on 
the ship, whether it is airmen in the air or the soldier on the ground, 
and I salute him for that. And, hopefully, as he leaves this body, I 
want him to know that he has served this institution with great 
distinction, and he has brought honor not only upon himself and his 
family but this institution by how he served and the manner he 
conducted himself.

[[Page H8563]]

  So Godspeed to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
McHale).
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers, I urge 
adoption of the rule, and I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Claremont, California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished 
vice chairman of the committee who will be closing for our side.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding this time to 
me, and I would like to extend the congratulations that the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) did to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
McHale) also to Mr. Buyer, because I believe that carrying that message 
of Reservists is a very, very important one, and he has done it very 
well. So congratulations to both Messrs. Buyer and McHale, although I 
know Mr. Buyer will be returning here next year, unlike the unfortunate 
decision that Mr. McHale made.
  Mr. Speaker, a week ago today we marked the 211th anniversary of the 
signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, Constitution Day, and 
I had the thrill of going, one of my constituents had this nationwide 
program, and I left the Committee on Rules, as the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon) knows, to recite the preamble of the Constitution on 
a nationwide hookup. And from my perspective those key words right in 
the middle of the preamble are so important, and they cannot be 
forgotten: Provide for the common defense.
  To me, as we look at the many things that the Federal Government 
involves itself in, there really is only one that can only be done by 
the Federal Government, and that is providing for the common defense. 
And that is why this measure is so important.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) has done a spectacular 
job in his position, and I will never, never forget the speech that he 
gave to our Republican conference several months ago about the 
importance of our national security.
  Now I hope and pray that this $1 billion request that the President 
has made and his recognition that we need to enhance our defense 
capability will not, in fact, be too little too late. But the world now 
knows that the threat that exists is much different than it was during 
the Cold War, but it is, in many ways, more dangerous because of the 
disparate uncertainty that exists. If we look at, as my friend from 
California (Mr. Hunter) said, the North Korean situation, if we look at 
the Middle East, if we look at Kosovo, it is very serious.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule and strongly support the 
conference report, and, if the chairman wants me to, I will move the 
previous question.
  Mr. SOLOMON. 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.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 549, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3616) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 549, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 22, 1998 at page H8097.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
1999 started the year out on a bipartisan note. It was reported out of 
the Committee on National Security back in early May on a vote of 50 to 
1 and it passed the House on a vote of 357 to 60.
  I am glad to inform all of my colleagues that the conference report 
today also enjoys strong bipartisan support. Even after several weeks 
of often difficult compromise, all 33 Committee on National Security 
conferees signed the conference report, something which has not 
occurred in 17 years, not since 1981. Likewise, all Senate conferees 
have signed the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, the funding authorized in this conference report is 
consistent with the spending level set in the Balanced Budget Act, but, 
unfortunately, represents the 14th consecutive year of real decline in 
the defense budget.
  While the fall of the Berlin Wall brought with it an opportunity to 
reduce our Cold War defense structure, almost 10 years later I believe 
that the threats and challenges America confronts and the pressures 
these threats have placed on a still shrinking United States military 
have been dramatically underestimated. The mismatch between the 
Nation's military strategy and the resources required to implement it 
is growing. As a result, serious quality of life, readiness and 
modernization shortfalls have developed that, if left unaddressed, 
threaten the return to the hollow military of the 1970's. Mr. Speaker, 
it is a very serious problem.
  During each of the last three years, Congress has increased the 
spending over the President's defense budget in order to address a 
number of these shortfalls. This year, faced with the constraints of 
the Balanced Budget Act, we have not been able to increase the defense 
budget, and, instead, we are left with a much more difficult challenge 
of trying to reprioritize the President's budget request. However, 
through such careful re-prioritization, we have provided the military 
services at least some of the tools needed to better recruit and retain 
quality personnel, better trained personnel, and better equip them with 
the advanced technology. This conference report is a marked improvement 
over the President's budget request, as indicated by the unanimous and 
bipartisan support it has among the House and Senate conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report is before the House today only as 
a result of the incredible efforts of all of our conferees, as well as 
the staff. In particular I want to recognize the critical roles played 
by the Committee on National Security subcommittee and panel chairmen 
and ranking members. Their efforts made my job easier and their 
dedication has made today possible.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), 
the committee's ranking member, for his cooperation and support. I have 
enjoyed working with the gentleman for many years. He has served as a 
dedicated member of the committee, and I am honored to be working with 
him now in his capacity as the committees ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, please allow me to pause at this time and thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, for his invaluable service and support of our committee over 
these years he has been chairman of the Committee on Rules, and many 
other valuable ways in which he supported his own efforts in support of 
our military people throughout this world.
  I would also like to pay tribute to my good friend, Senator Strom 
Thurmond, for whom this conference report has been named. There is no 
one in this or any other Congress who has done more than Senator 
Thurmond for our Nation's defense, so presenting this conference report 
to the House in his name is a special honor for me.
  Senator Thurmond will step down as chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee at the end of this Congress, but I have no doubt 
that he will continue to work tirelessly and effectively on behalf of 
the men and women who serve in our military. It is his way. He knows no 
other. So I look forward to many more productive years of working with 
my good friend from South Carolina to ensure our military remains 
second to none.

[[Page H8564]]

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the 
efforts of the Committee on National Security staff. This is a very 
large, complex and often controversial bill, yet the staff is 
instrumental in making it work year after year. In a too often 
thankless job, the staff remains one of consummate professionals.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my support on the conference report on 
H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999. 
There were numerous issues which the conference addressed. Many were 
easy to resolve; others provided more difficulty. Among the latter were 
funding for Bosnia, gender-integrated training, tritium production, 
restrictions on base closure, and export controls concerning commercial 
communication satellites and related items.
  With hard work and goodwill, the conferees worked up a report that 
reflected compromise on these issues between the two bodies. At the 
same time we took consideration of a number of concerns that Secretary 
of Defense Cohen expressed to Senators Thurmond and Levin and the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and to me concerning 
both bills when we met with him during the conference that we had with 
him in mid-July. As a result, I believe we have a good conference 
report, a good conference agreement, with which all of us, the House 
and the Senate and the administration, can be satisfied.
  This year we operated under the restrictions of the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997, thus a task of trying to address the many issues affecting 
the Armed Forces was more difficult to manage than in years past. 
However, we provided a pay raise, 3.6 percent, which is a half a 
percent more than the budget request, supported the department's 
request for a real increase in the procurement budget for modernization 
for the first time in 13 years, and authorized more than $250 million 
above the budget request for family housing and troop housing and child 
development centers.
  Members and the staff from both sides worked in a cooperative manner 
to shape a conference report that enjoys strong bipartisan support. All 
the conferees, Mr. Speaker, all of the conferees from the Committee on 
National Security in the House and the Armed Services Committee in the 
Senate signed the conference report.
  As one who believes that we need to provide for a sustained period of 
real growth in defense spending, I am encouraged by the reports that 
the Pentagon and the administration will seek to redress these 
shortfalls in fiscal year 2000 and hopefully in the future years.
  Mr. Speaker, I might point out, as I briefly mentioned a moment ago 
in debate on the rule, that back in March of 1996 I put forward a 
three-year defense budget before the Committee on the Budget. It added 
at that time additional funding for each of those three years.
  As a result of the limitations that the Committee on the Budget came 
forth with, we have been working under a constrained figure each of 
those three years. However, I am encouraged that as a result of our 
efforts, which really started right here, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence), bless your heart, helped put together a letter, 
with most of the top row in our committee, urging the President to 
consider and also urging other House and Senate leaders to consider 
increasing the overall defense budget, which is sorely needed.
  Although the bill that is before us fails to address all of the 
readiness and quality of life and modernization shortfalls which exist, 
it is the best we could do, given the budget constraints, to train the 
quality of force that is the most important component of the military 
strength. I hope our colleagues will support this conference report, 
and I hope that in the days ahead we will find additional funding, and 
that it starts right here in the Congress.
  Let me add, Mr. Speaker, a special congratulations to my friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for his 
absolute commitment to having the work of the committee carried on in a 
bipartisan fashion. I personally appreciate it, and those of us on our 
side appreciate it as well. This bill is a reflection of that 
bipartisan spirit. It is with this in mind that I can fully support and 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this.
  Members of the committee on both sides have worked hard since 
February to get us here today, many hearings, many briefings, many 
conferences. This is especially true with the subcommittee panel 
chairmen and the ranking members. And allow me to thank the staff. My 
goodness, we could not get along without them. I thank them for so ably 
assisting us. Their dedication, their expertise, is outstanding, and we 
appreciate their hard work.
  Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I note we will also be 
on this bill having the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) voting for the last time. 
They have been truly dedicated members of this committee, the Committee 
on National Security. I want to thank them for their fine efforts over 
the years. They are wonderful Americans, outstanding and excellent 
representatives of the people who elected them. We wish them well in 
the days and years ahead. Their contributions to the work on this 
committee will long be remembered and their presence will be missed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bateman), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military 
Readiness.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report 
on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999. This 
conference report is essential to the readiness of our military forces.
  Through several hearings, here and in the field, and after extensive 
study by the committee, we of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness 
have recognized that the military forces are doing much more with less 
at a time of significant downsizing of our combat and support forces. 
The best thing that can be said about this report is that it is the 
best we can do within the budget constraints that have been imposed 
upon us.
  Realistically, it must also be said that the best we can do in this 
context is not nearly good enough. It address shortfalls in many of the 
essential readiness accounts. The committee increased readiness funding 
for training operations and flying hours, maintenance and repair of 
combat equipment, and facilities renovation and repairs, but we are not 
catching up with the need. All of these increases are necessary and 
will improve the quality of life of our service members and their 
families.
  Also included in the conference report is a provision that gets at 
the problem of timely and accurate reporting on the readiness 
conditions of the forces. I believe this and several other provisions 
found in the conference report on H.R. 3616 will provide better 
information that will help to quickly identify the continued decline in 
military readiness and place us in a position to act before the system 
is further degraded.
  I would like to thank the ranking member of the readiness 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) for outstanding 
cooperation, knowledge and leadership throughout the process. The 
Subcommittee on Military Readiness has had to deal with several 
difficult issues that have transcended political lines, which would 
have been more difficult if it were not for his expertise, his 
assistance and his bipartisanship.
  Only the constraints of time would prevent me from mentioning by name 
the members of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness who have 
contributed so much to the work product of the committee, and they I am 
indeed grateful to.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), the ranking Democrat on the 
chairman's subcommittee and a very, very valuable member of our 
committee.

[[Page H8565]]

  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Missouri, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, in the House's perspective, this conference agreement on 
H.R. 3616 does not contain everything we wanted. Nevertheless, the 
final product deserves our support.
  This conference agreement authorizes $49.5 billion for procurement in 
fiscal year 1999. This represents an increase of $800 million above the 
President's request, and more importantly, $4 billion, or 8 percent, 
above last year's level. Even more importantly, it marks the end of a 
too long procurement holiday. Clearly this is good progress, but more 
is needed.
  Procurement budgets have drifted to artificially low levels in recent 
years, and went from the Reagan buildup in the eighties and the end of 
the Cold War in the nineties, but equipment developed and produced in 
the seventies and eighties is rapidly reaching the end of its useful 
life. It must be replaced if we are to maintain required equipment 
levels and technological superiority for our forces. I believe H.R. 
3616 represents a good-faith effort to respond to that concern.
  Mr. Speaker, during the last year I have been on the Subcommittee on 
Military Readiness with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Bateman), and I have taken it upon myself to travel to military bases; 
not glamorous bases. I have visited the 7th Fleet in the farthest, 
remote stretches of Japan. I have been in the field at Fort Campbell, 
Kentucky, with the 101st Airborne. I have been to Bosnia. I have been 
in the Persian Gulf. Three weeks ago, four weeks ago, I visited the 
82nd Airborne Division or the 18th Armored Corps at Fort Bragg, North 
Carolina.
  How lucky we are in this country, how lucky we are in this Congress, 
to have young men and women serving like these young men and women do. 
Members have heard today from many speakers about the shortfalls in 
health care, quality of life issues, equipment, retirement, all of 
these different things. Through this all, God blessed this Republic 
with young men and women who are serving today on a very, very short 
leash, ready to do something.
  I would tell my colleagues in this body that what they have heard 
about a $1 billion shortfall, and we are going put it into readiness, 
is nothing. I told the Members about an increase in procurement, but 
guess what, we need more than $60 billion a year. When all these new 
weapons systems come due in a couple of years we are going to need a 
lot more than that. If not, we are heading for disaster, I am afraid, 
in our military.
  I think it has to be told, and our colleagues have to understand, 
this Nation, this Nation needs these young people. We have to take care 
of these young people, because let me tell the Members this, the worst 
thing in our lives from a political standpoint is one day we may have 
to vote for selective service again, if we do not recruit people. That 
is one of the problems that we are having today, recruiting people, and 
particularly as it relates to pilots.
  Having said that, without reservation, I urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of this conference agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement on H.R. 3616 does not contain 
everything that we would have wanted for procurement from the House 
perspective. Nevertheless, it is a final product that is deserving of 
our support. Let me explain.
  This conference agreement authorizes $49.5 billion for military 
procurement for fiscal year 1999. This represents an increase of $800 
million above the President's request and, more importantly, $4 billion 
or 8 percent above last year's level. More importantly, it signals the 
end of an overly protracted ``procurement holiday.'' Clearly, good 
progress--but more is needed.
  Procurement budgets have drifted to artificially low levels in recent 
years because we've benefited from a ``procurement holiday'' made 
possible by the Reagan build-up in the eighties, and the end of the 
Cold War in the nineties. But, cold war equipment developed and 
produced in the 1970's and 1980's, is rapidly reaching the end of its 
useful life and must be replaced if we are to maintain the requirement 
equipment levels and technological superiority for our forces. Recent 
procurement budgets are proving inadequate for the task--equipment 
modernization is not keeping up with equipment retirements and threat 
development. This is particularly worrisome with respect to our naval 
forces.
  Clearly, the time for increased procurement budgets has come. And 
H.R. 3616 represents a good faith effort to respond to that concern. By 
signaling the end of an increasingly corrosive ``procurement holiday,'' 
this conference agreement deserves our unqualified support. Therefore, 
and without reservation, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
conference agreement.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Procurement.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I have already made a statement during the rule debate, but let me 
just say again that this bill need to be passed. It is a bare minimum. 
It is a starting point.
  Today, after years of our committee telling the President that we are 
underfunded in defense, he has announced that he believes we are 
underfunded in defense. With respect to fixed-wing aircraft, rotary 
aircraft, our shipbuilding program, our missile defense program, and 
lots of what I would call ham and eggs items, those are the generators 
and the small trucks and the heavy trucks, and all the things that make 
our military move, we are shortfunded.
  We are building today, once again, to a fleet of 200 ships in the 
U.S. Navy. I think the stability of the world depends on a strong 
America and our ability to project military power. We have lost a great 
deal of that ability over the last 4 years. It is time to rebuild, and 
the first thing we can do, and every Member can do to contributing to 
that rebuilding of defense, is to pass this conference report. Everyone 
should vote for this report.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me comment on the words of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Sisisky). I especially appreciate his positive comments 
about the young men and young women that we have in uniform today. They 
are the finest in the world. It is our job to take care of them, and 
hopefully in the days and years ahead we can do a better job, because 
as Harry Truman said, the buck stops with us, in the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend for yielding 
time to me. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3616, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 Military Readiness 
leadership and to my colleagues on both sides of the aisles of the 
subcommittee and the full committee for the manner in which they 
conducted the business of the subcommittee this session. I want to 
express my appreciation to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) 
for his personal involvement, and the extra steps that he took in 
getting us to where we are today.
  We had the opportunity to see 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 shortages of repair 
parts, the extra hours spent trying to maintain old equipment, and the 
shortage of critical personnel.
  While we in this body may 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 face 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 with 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 under this bill. While I 
would be more pleased if the migration of O&M funds to other accounts 
did not take place, I am optimistic that the recent correspondence I 
have seen from the President indicates an interest in providing 
additional funds for the readiness accounts.
  Mr. Speaker, we have many, many problems. Retention has become a 
serious problem. As I talk to the men and

[[Page H8566]]

women who serve, the first question they ask me is this: You know, when 
my father went in the military, he would get 60 percent of his pension. 
It has gone down to 50, and now to 40 percent.
  We have to do more to help our young men and women. The Air Force, 
they are 700 pilots short. I could go on and on and on. But with what 
we have to work with, I think that this is a good bill. I ask my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who is the 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. Speaker, I thank my distinguished 
friend and chairman for yielding time to me. I want to say what a great 
honor it is to serve with both the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Floyd Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ike Skelton), two 
outstanding Americans, and what a great, refreshing breeze is flowing 
through this Chamber as Democrats and Republicans stand together in 
support of our military.
  I want to applaud my distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Pickett) on the Subcommittee on Military Research and 
Development, who is a true American who has done a fantastic job, as 
have all of our colleagues, in an impossible situation.
  What Members need to understand, Mr. Speaker, is that we are facing 
what my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) referred 
to as a major train wreck, because some very divergent things are 
happening.
  We are into our 15th consecutive year of real cuts in defense 
spending. We are facing a situation now where we have an all volunteer 
force. Unlike 20 years ago, where we could draft people and pay them 
next to nothing, today a much larger portion of our defense budget goes 
for quality of life issues: housing, education, health care costs.
  Unlike 20 years ago, in the past 6 years we have deployed our troops 
26 times. That is 26 times in 6 years versus 10 times in the previous 
40 years, and none of these 26 deployments by our Commander in Chief 
were budgeted for. None of them were paid for. So the $15 billion in 
contingency costs to pay for those 26 deployments had to be eaten out 
of an already decreasing defense budget.
  What is the fastest growing part of our defense budget? It is 
environmental mitigation. We did not even have that category 20 years 
ago. This year we will spend $11 billion on environmental mitigation. 
When we add all of those factors together, Mr. Speaker, we are facing 
an impossible situation.
  We have not replaced our equipment that needs to be replaced. We have 
not done the readiness that needs to be taken care of. We have not 
provided the R&D funding that is necessary. By the year 2000, as the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) pointed out, we face a major, 
colossal train wreck. All these new programs that have not been paid 
for come on line at one time.
  This Congress needs to understand that while this bill is important 
and while we all should vote yes in favor of it, the real tough 
challenge lies ahead. Hopefully together we can increase the top line 
number for defense spending.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member 
for yielding time to me and for accommodating me, as I have some other 
scheduled things.
  I want to thank him and the other members of the conference committee 
particularly on the part of the House for insisting successfully on 
inclusion in this bill of the amendment we adopted overwhelmingly to 
put a cap on American contributions for the expansion of NATO. I do not 
understand why the administration fought us, but we did them a great 
favor by overcoming their opposition. I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), the gentleman from Missouri, and others for 
putting it in.
  I understand that we have a problem with not enough money for 
defense. If we take as a given all of the missions we have undertaken 
and assigned to our defense establishment, then we have a problem in 
paying for them.
  But there are two solutions to that: One is to pay a lot more money, 
to cut into the surplus, to take money away from other possible uses in 
the budget by ramping up defense spending. The other is to ramp down 
what we have undertaken to do.
  Yes, we must not ever compromise with our national security. Yes, 
there are other parts of the world where we want to go and offer 
assistance. But 50 years after the end of World War II, we continue to 
overdo it vis-a-vis our allies. We have today around this world wealthy 
allies capable of doing more.
  Part of the problem we have is this unilateral assumption by America 
of responsibilities beyond which are reasonable. That is why I am 
delighted to have the committee today bring us a bill which for the 
first time puts a congressionally mandated binding limit on what we can 
spend for NATO.
  We have to explain this to our Western European allies, and we 
continue, even with this, to be spending tens of billions of dollars 
for the defense of Western Europe, unnecessarily. The Russian enemy 
which called this into question has crumbled as a conventional military 
power. The Europeans themselves, unlike the end of World War II, are 
numerous and prosperous. They could do more. I hope this is an example 
we will follow in the future.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. McHugh), the chairman of our MWR panel.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in strong support of this conference 
report for national defense, particularly as it relates to the 
provisions authorizing the morale, welfare, and recreation activities 
of the department.
  Before I do that, I want to add my words of thanks and praise to both 
the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for their 
cooperative effort and bipartisanship, and as we have heard time and 
time again, for the great job they do. They serve as an example to all 
of us.
  Also I want to thank the members of the MWR panel and its ranking 
member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for his 
constructive and bipartisan support.
  Our biggest challenge was the protection and enhancement of the 
resale system, the commissaries and exchanges that provide low-cost 
groceries and other essential items for servicemembers, their families 
and retirees wherever they serve around the world.

                              {time}  1345

  These programs have been under scrutiny recently by those who 
question the value of that system. In order to find out how important 
the system is to the military life, the MWR panel held a lengthy and I 
think we can say balanced hearing on the benefit. And from the 
standpoint of the military, from the top ranks to the lowest, the view 
was unanimous and clear. Commissaries and exchanges are a great and 
invaluable benefit to the men and women in uniform.
  For that reason, the House has included several provisions that 
strengthen the resale system and the quality of life for our soldiers 
and their families. For example, we were concerned that the pressures 
on service budgets would lead to the degradation of commissary funding 
and this bill takes strong action to protect those funds. Given the 
President's recent admission that the military is indeed underfunded in 
the fiscal year 1999 and beyond, these measures are even of greater 
importance, and I am pleased that they were included in this report.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight one other provision. Other Members, 
indeed all Americans, appreciate the dedication of the members of the 
Reserve and National Guard. They are often called to duty on short 
notice, whether they be deployed to Bosnia or to help to clean up after 
some national disaster.
  I believe, and my colleagues on the conference committee have agreed, 
that it is time to increase those privileges. We have done that in this 
bill. It is a great bill and a great step and I

[[Page H8567]]

thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) for allowing 
me this time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who is such a strong supporter of national 
security, and who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Military Installations and Facilities.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for 
their wise counsel and their ready availability to all the Members, 
including this Member, with respect to any aspect of our Committee on 
National Security reports and this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank as well to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley), my subcommittee chairman and my friend. 
Unfortunately, he is not on the floor at the moment, but I hope that my 
good wishes and good feelings towards him will be conveyed. I thank him 
for his leadership and for the fair process by which he has handled the 
military construction portion of the Defense authorization bill. His 
collegial and bipartisan approach encourages and in fact has yielded an 
outcome which shuns parochialism and constantly strives for the good-
government solutions that this bill represents to difficult funding 
issues. It is made even more difficult by the constrained fiscal 
environment which has been mentioned.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not take up the Members' time in repeating the 
details of the report, only to point out however that the budget 
adopted by the conferees represents a considerable effort in bettering 
the quality of life for our military personnel.
  A good portion of the $666 million that was added to the President's 
request for military construction is to be spent on the most 
intractable problem we face, military housing; $101 million towards 
improving existing family housing units and $153 million towards new 
barracks and dormitories. Quality of life of our military personnel 
will be improved as a result.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleagues we are far from our 
goal of adequate housing. More spending is needed. As this bill goes 
forward, the condition of the military installation continues to 
deteriorate. We will be working on it.
  Though I support the bill, I want to express my continued concern 
that we are unable to assure a level playing field for small 
businesses. I have worked with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) 
on the CLASS proposal in the House passed authorization, because it 
improves the quality of life again for our service members and 
maintains a level playing field for small businesses to compete in the 
forwarding of household goods. Unfortunately, in the end, we were not 
able to get agreement on this. I can assure my colleagues we will work 
to resolve this issue in the best interests of our men and women in the 
Armed Forces.
  Regrettably, also the Charter and Build provision was not included. 
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) 
in particular for his steadfast resolution in this regard. The 
provision is good for America because it provides a means for the Navy 
to acquire the ships it needs to meet our strategic requirements and 
sustain the industrial base needed to produce them. The issue, I assure 
my colleagues, will be revisited until it is won.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) 
and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their leadership on 
this issue. I tell my colleagues that they can rest assured that I will 
continue to work with them on behalf of the strategic interests of the 
United States of America.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference 
report, and I want to give a special thanks also to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), ranking member. They have worked innumerable hours to bring 
this conference report to the floor today.
  This year again, our committee faced difficult budget challenges. At 
the same time we heard witness after witness testify that readiness is 
suffering and that critical modernization needs are not being met.
  Under these circumstances, this bill is an excellent product. The 
conferees struggled mightily to increase authorization levels for depot 
and real property maintenance, for training, construction, and key 
modernization accounts. We also provided a 3.6 percent troop pay raise 
and took other steps to address the Services' acute retention problems.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I must tell my colleagues that this bill does 
not meet all of our national security needs. This is the fourteenth 
consecutive year that real defense spending will decline. Meanwhile, we 
have diverted $10 billion from key investments to Bosnia, even as North 
Korea tests multistage ballistic missiles over Japan.
  We must increase our spending on defense if we hope to assure that 
our national security priorities are met. I urge support for this 
conference report.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Guam (Mr. Underwood), who is the ranking member on the Merchant Marine 
panel.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) for yielding me this time, my ranking member, and I want to 
extend my congratulations to him and to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Chairman Spence) of the Committee on National Security for 
this excellent conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I too stand in strong support of H.R. 3616. Coming from 
the Island of Guam, which has had great experience with war and is in 
the middle of any potential contingency in Asia, we full well know that 
the stability of the world, the stability of our region depends upon a 
strong America and that a strong America depends upon a strong 
military. In fact, a strong military depends upon taking care of our 
young people in the military, and that is why we have so many concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to echo some of those concerns about the OPTEMPO 
and the concerns about readiness and some of the issues which have been 
brought to the surface under the leadership of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bateman), amongst others. I also want to draw a little 
bit of attention to benefits and quality of life issues for both 
Reserve and Active Service personnel.
  I am happy that we were able to include in this conference report, in 
the legislation, a provision that would allow National Guardsmen to 
have commissary privileges when they are called up for duty in a 
federally declared disaster area, which is experience that the Guam 
National Guard had an unfortunate experience in with the recent typhoon 
Paco.
  I am also happy to note that we have doubled the number of commissary 
visits from 12 to 24 under the leadership of MWR Chairman McHugh. I am 
also happy to report that by working very closely with the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Buyer) and ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
we have authorized a car rental reimbursement program for service 
people who do not get their cars shipped overseas and get them 
delivered on time. This quality of life provision, with which 
especially those of us overseas are greatly familiar, will help reduce 
the burden that our men and women in uniform face when relocating to a 
permanent station overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to draw attention to the fact that this 
legislation has many provisions for the missile defense of our Nation, 
which sometimes in the course of discussing missile defense, sometimes 
Alaska and Hawaii were left out and almost all the time Guam was left 
out.
  The Nation must continue to develop robust theater missile defense, 
such as the Navy Theater Wide, which is especially well-suited to 
protect an insular area like Guam. And given the current level of 
missile development in North Korea, this is a matter of grave concern 
to my people, as it should be to the entire country.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Installations and Facilities, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
for accepting an amendment that will require the Department of Defense 
to report to

[[Page H8568]]

Congress their proposed plan for privatization of military electric and 
water utilities.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank again both the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Chairman Spence) and my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton).
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), a very valuable member of our committee.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
report and in admiration of the work of our chairman and the ranking 
member. This bill is not perfect, but it certainly deserves our 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight two areas. One deals with nuclear 
weapons. The administration has not asked for enough money, and 
Congress has not provided enough money, to make sure that our nuclear 
weapons laboratories and production facilities can do the job that we 
are asking them to do. This bill does, however, put some extra money 
into those places and begins to make up some of that deficit. But it is 
very important that we keep a strong nuclear deterrent. That will be a 
tough job in the future.
  The bill also supports our continuing efforts to dismantle Russian 
delivery systems and to put tighter security around Russian nuclear 
weapons and Russian nuclear materials, both of which are very 
important. With all the terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and 
instability around the world, we cannot afford to neglect either of 
these areas at all.
  Secondly, this bill helps take some steps toward preparing for the 
future. Part of that is getting and keeping the best people we can. It 
has got a pay raise, and thanks to the work of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and others, it has a demonstration 
project for military retiree health care that takes us a step closer to 
keeping our commitments to military retirees.
  There is a study on the organization of the Pentagon to try to make 
sure that we are the best organized possible to deal with the 
challenges of the future. And there is a clear expression of the 
importance of joint experimentation to try to make sure that whatever 
money we spend on future procurement items is spent on the right things 
that will help us to meet the challenges of the future.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going into a period where the challenges are more 
difficult than they have ever been in the past. We have a long way to 
go, but this bill helps take us in the right direction and deserves the 
support of all our colleagues.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman), a strong member of our committee. A few 
moments ago, I expressed our appreciation for all the work that the 
gentlewoman has done in the area of national security and we are going 
to miss her.
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his generous words. He knows that this 
is my last defense authorization bill.
  I have served on the committee for three terms, 6 years, first under 
the distinguished chairmanship of Ron Dellums and now under the 
leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), THE ranking member.
  I also want to acknowledge that our former chairman, the late 
Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, was a mentor of mine, and he is on my 
mind today, too.
  Mr. Speaker, during the past three Congresses, the committee has 
strengthened our Nation's defense capabilities, but naturally I always 
hoped we could do more.
  I have always believed we need to modernize our military by focusing 
on tomorrow's battles, not yesterday's. As such, I strongly believe 
Congress can do more to embrace the revolution in military affairs.
  Similarly, we need to modernize our forces and continue development 
of advanced precision strike capabilities, like the B-2 Stealth bomber, 
and heavy lift capability, like the Air Force's C-17. In fact, I have 
always called the C-17 my fifth child.
  The committee has started to address the imbalance in the tooth-to-
tail ratio, and I commend it for that. In our defense downsizing, we 
have cut too much of our combat ability, the tooth, and left a 
disproportionate amount of our support structure, the tail.
  As a representative of the district I call the aerospace center of 
the universe, I know what those cuts mean in human terms and in 
national security terms.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. Speaker, we also must move to assure safety and opportunity to 
women without whom we could not field an all-volunteer force. I am 
pleased that this bill does not resegregate basic training by gender, a 
move backwards, in my view.
  Mr. Speaker, though I will not be in Congress, I plan to continue to 
help shape our Nation's defense policies. My service to the women and 
men who build our defense assets and put their lives on the line for 
our country will not end with Congress's adjournment.
  To my friends on the committee, to my friends who have been on the 
committee, it has been an honor to work with them.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Granger), former mayor of Fort Worth, Texas, a very valuable 
member of our committee.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 1999 
National Defense Authorization Act conference report. While this 
legislation does not contain everything many of us would like to have 
funded, I do want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their very, very hard work to produce a bill 
that meets the needs of our Armed Services.
  A great American general once said, wars are fought with weapons, but 
they are won with soldiers. I believe our national defense policy 
should be based on this sound premise. Great weapons and great troops 
are what make America's military the best. However, I share the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence's) and the defense 
community's concerns that these funding levels are still inadequate to 
meet the increasing number of threats to our national security.
  We cannot continue to do more with less. We cannot continue to expect 
to get ahead by just getting by. So while I support this legislation, I 
urge my colleagues to recommit themselves to the cause of national 
security. That is why it is so important the committee included funding 
for the F-16, V-22, F-22 and continued R&D for the multi-service, 
multi-role joint strike fighter. These weapons make a statement about 
our commitment to national security, and they will make a difference in 
preserving our national safety.
  I am looking forward to working with the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence) in his commitment to continuing to make national 
security our number one national priority.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Pickett), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military 
Research and Development.
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their 
constructive work in reaching this conference agreement which I 
strongly support. I also want to commend all committee members, 
including our chairman and ranking member, for what they have done to 
make it possible for us to be here today with an agreement I think 
meets most of our defense needs.
  Given the considerable budget limitations we have had to deal with 
this year, I am very encouraged with the conference agreement before 
us. While keeping spending limits within those set by the balanced 
budget agreement, the conference agreement continues to make progress 
in resolving several concerns about the Defense Department's proposed 
future years defense plan. I am pleased to report that the naval 
aviation and missile defense programs remain on schedule, that Army 
modernization plans remain intact and

[[Page H8569]]

that Air Force priorities have been maintained.
  I am also encouraged that the conference agreement includes an honest 
effort to address each of the above issues. Several provisions provide 
additional authorization for promising programs, and others invest in 
what may prove to be leap-ahead technologies. As a result, it is my 
hope that this agreement will represent the beginning of an increased 
commitment to research and development.
  As a long-standing member of the Committee on National Security, I 
have repeatedly recognized the virtue of maintaining adequate 
investment in our Nation's science and technology defense programs. To 
be sure, without such healthy investment in the 1960s and 1970s, our 
Nation would not have been able to prevail so decisively during the 
1991 Gulf War, nor would our Nation's more recent deployments have 
proven successful.
  As in the Gulf War example, today's force has benefited from planning 
and commitment. Innovative forethought and steadfast execution 20 and 
30 years ago produced a superior and unmatched military in 1990, one 
founded on advances in stealth, precision targeting, communications, 
imagery and mobility, just to name a few.
  But our challenge remains and continues today. And while it is a 
challenge, it is also a necessity that we indefinitely sustain the 
impressive force that we have. This conference agreement authorizes a 
number of programs designed to meet this challenge. On behalf of our 
Nation's soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, I ask all Members of 
this body to vote yes on final passage of the fiscal year 1999 defense 
authorization bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox), for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding 
me the time.
  I rise to applaud the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and 
the conferees for bringing to this House a measure that is vital to our 
national security. I am especially pleased that the conference report 
incorporates a number of the bills that made up our policy for freedom 
in China. These bills passed the House last fall with overwhelming 
bipartisan support.
  One of the ``Policy for Freedom in China'' bills included in the 
conference report is the legislation written by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), providing for design of a theater missile 
defense system for Taiwan. This significant provision was drafted in 
response to the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1996 in which the PRC fired 
nuclear-capable missiles surrounding Taiwan's major ports.
  However, since the recent North Korean missile launch over Japan, it 
has become clear that other friends and allies in the region, not just 
Taiwan, are vulnerable to the threat of missile attacks.
  I would like to inquire of the distinguished chairman, the gentleman 
from South Carolina, whether the conference report will, in fact, 
require the administration to address the missile defense needs of 
Taiwan and also our other East Asian allies.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COX of California. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that he is 
correct. In light of the emerging evidence of North Korea's missile 
threat to the United States and our forces in the region, the conferees 
expanded the provision to include not just Taiwan but all of our allies 
in the Asian Pacific region. This is an important provision of the 
conference report, and I appreciate the gentleman's interest and 
leadership in this area.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COX of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the full 
committee also for working the missile defense issue, especially in 
light of the fact that the North Koreans are now very close to having 
an ICBM, that is intercontinental ballistic missile, capability. This 
provision is absolutely imperative.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the 
committee for his clarification of this matter. I commend the conferees 
for taking the critical steps to secure peace and stability in East 
Asia.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, in the authorization conference report there 
is a large increase of $120 million for the Navy Theater Wide Ballistic 
Missile Defense system that we just spoke of. I believe $50 million of 
the increase was set aside specifically for improvements.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
  Most of the Navy Theater Wide funding to date has gone to support the 
new interceptor required to destroy incoming ballistic missiles. 
Additional funding for radar development is needed to assure that the 
system is capable of detecting and tracking ballistic missiles in 
flight.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I also note that the report discusses the 
availability of a prototype radar by the year 2001 to support testing 
of the new interceptor.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that is true. In essence, this date is direction to the Navy to get 
started now on a radar development program in a way that best supports 
the Navy Theater Wide.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, the Navy has two options to upgrade its 
radar capabilities. One is an upgrade of the SPY-1 radar. I believe 
that this option would meet all the Navy Theater Wide system 
requirements while also meeting the projected cruise missile threat.
  The other option is a single-purpose radar system that would be 
mounted in the superstructure of an Aegis cruiser. The Navy has not 
taken a formal position on which option they believe is preferable. I 
believe and I strongly believe this SPY-1 upgrade is the right 
alternative, and I believe we need to get started on a radar 
development now to support the NTW mission and the new interceptor.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman because our 
conference report, and that is supported by the chairman and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), supports the gentleman's goal 
of vigorously pursuing the radar improvements that the gentleman has 
accurately noted are needed. The $50 million increase to the Navy 
Theater Wide program is specifically dedicated to accelerating these 
radar improvements and to ensure that the radar can support the full 
range of Navy requirements, including cruise and ballistic missile 
threats. And, once again, this is a very imperative program.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), a very active and knowledgeable member of our 
committee.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, these are very difficult 
remarks for me, but I cannot keep faith with hundreds of thousands of 
Americans without rising to express major concern about a portion of 
this bill. The Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition, 
Concerned Women for America and Focus on the Family are all calling for 
a no vote on this bill. They are doing that because they love this 
country. They are doing that because they really support a strong 
military.
  Their concern is that this report failed to include language on 
requiring separate gender training in PT, in small units recommended by 
the Kassebaum-Baker panel, included in our House bill and endorsed by a 
letter to the conferees signed by all of senior leadership and by all 
but one of our full committee chairs.
  Not a single woman plays professional football. Not a single woman 
plays professional baseball. Men and women are different, and they need 
to be trained separately in PT.
  No matter how long we worship at the altar of political correctness, 
it will not change this fact. We need to send this bill back to 
conference so we can report out a good bill that we can

[[Page H8570]]

pass that is really going to support our military. If we continue with 
the present policy, it assures continued embarrassing sexual misconduct 
scandals.
  The chaplain at Fort Leonard Wood said what we are trying to do runs 
contrary to the powers of nature. Secondly, it is contrary to good 
order and discipline. It puts readiness at risk. It puts the lives of 
our young military people at risk.
  Please send this back to committee. Support these hundreds of 
thousands of Americans that want a strong military and appropriate 
training for our young people.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who has been so active in helping 
establish the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program demonstration 
project.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran) is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the ranking 
member not only for yielding me this time but particularly for his 
leadership and the leadership of the chairman of our Committee on Armed 
Services, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  There are so many reasons to rise in support of this bill, but, more 
than any, the underlying theme of this bill is that our Armed Forces 
are not just about weapons or strategies or technology, but the heart 
of our Armed Forces are the people who have to operate the weapons, who 
have to represent us in this country and abroad.
  This bill is primarily designed to ensure that we can recruit, that 
we can train, that we can sustain our enlisted personnel, the very best 
that this country has to offer, and we can also treat military retirees 
with the gratitude and the respect that they deserve.
  There is one provision in this bill that I want to underscore, 
because it does address a situation that has occurred over the years, 
really since 1956, when the military started to back off what was 
considered to be a commitment. When people enlisted in the military 
right up until last year they were told in recruitment literature that 
they would be entitled to free, quality, lifetime health care.
  This bill addresses that. It does so initially in a demonstration 
project. One of those demonstration projects is designed to extend the 
Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, as the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) and other speakers have said, to military retirees. It is 
the right thing to do.

                              {time}  1415

  Two people have died over the past year who spent a great deal of 
effort, who provided wonderful leadership, particularly for military 
retirees but also when they were in the military, and specifically over 
the last few years on this issue: General Pennington, who led the 
Retired Officers' Association, and Colonel Vince Smith, in my own 
district. Vince Smith and his wife Edie have worked for 6 years on this 
provision. These two heroes passed away knowing that this Congress 
responded to what they knew was a legitimate, and very important, 
request.
  With this legislation, we honor their memory and the memory of 
millions of people, men and women, who have served this country. They 
deserve the greatest respect we can afford them. They deserve the 
commitment that this bill entails. They deserve the kind of treatment 
that we will be able to eventually provide, which does not end when 
somebody leaves the service, but continues throughout their retirement 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bill we should all support.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pappas).
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I simply want to stand here and rise in support of this 
conference report. There may not be everything that is contained within 
it that every single Member agrees to, but overall, I think, Mr. 
Speaker, that it moves the defense and the national interests of our 
country forward, provides some very necessary funds for programs and 
our personnel, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member and all 
the members of the committee for working together in a bipartisan 
fashion to bring this forth.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report 
to the FY 99 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 3616). While we continue 
to underfund our national security strategy, this being the fourteenth 
consecutive year of a declining defense budget, this conference report 
meets our defense priorities within this constrained budget 
environment. Last week, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of 
Defense presented the President with the stark realities of the state 
of military readiness and weapon systems modernization shortfalls that 
our military is now experiencing. The President indicated his 
willingness to address these funding shortfalls in next year's budget 
request, which is a long time coming.
  With regard to a specific land conveyance provision in the bill 
(section 2833), I am pleased that we were able to make these technical, 
but necessary changes to the conveyance terms of real property from the 
Army's Redstone Arsenal to the Alabama Space Science Exhibit 
Commission. This section ensures that the future development of the 
U.S. Space & Rocket Center previously conveyed by the Army to the 
appropriate agency of the State of Alabama will remain consistent with 
the long-term master plan for the use of that property as agreed upon 
by the Center, Redstone Arsenal and the Marshall Space Flight Center, 
Present financing arrangements and mortgages relating to new and 
existing facilities at the Space and Rocket Center are preserved, and 
appropriate coordination of further financing initiatives, mortgages 
and other debt society arrangements in accordance with the agreed-upon 
master plan is assured.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud Chairman Spence 
and the Conferees for legislation vital to our country's national 
security.
  I am especially pleased to note that the bill includes a number of 
key elements of the ``Policy for Freedom in China'' that passed the 
House last fall with overwhelming bipartisan majorities.
  They include: H.R. 2647, Representative Tillie Fowler's bill 
enhancing the President's authority over enterprises in this country 
controlled by China's People's Liberation Army under the International 
Emergency Economic Powers Act (Section 1237).
  H.R. 2195, Representative Chris Smith's bill strengthening Customs 
Service interdiction of products made by China's infamous Laogai slave-
labor camps (Sections 3701-3703).
  H.R. 2232, Representative Ed Royce's Radio Free Asia Act, increasing 
the free flow of information in the major dialects of China and Tibet 
(Sections 3901-3903).
  H.R. 2386, Representative Duncan Hunter's bill providing for design 
of a theatre missile defense system for Taiwan (Section 1533).
  This key provision, which passed the House 301-116, was designed 
initially to respond to the Taiwan Strait Crisis of 1996, in which 
Beijing conducted missile firings into the international waters 
adjacent to Taiwan's key ports.
  In light of the emerging evidence of North Korea's missile threat to 
U.S. allies and forces in the region, the Senate and the conference 
have improved this provision by broadening it to include not just 
Taiwan but all our other key regional allies in the Asian-Pacific 
region.
  As a result, this important provision will serve to enhance security 
not just for Taiwan but for other key allies like Japan and the 
Republic of Korea.
  I strongly support this enhancement of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, with approval of this conference report both the House 
and Senate will have enacted our Policy for Freedom in China, thereby 
abandoning the Clinton Administration's empty approach and making 
important progress in ensuring peace and security in East Asia.
  I appreciate the consideration the Conference has given to these 
issues and appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of passage of 
the report.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of the conference 
report on H.R. 3616, the Defense Authorization for FY 1999.
  I am very pleased that the Conferees agreed to strike language 
included in the Senate-passed bill that would have allowed the 
Department of Defense (DoD) an unprecedented exemption to existing law 
to import a very dangerous class of chemicals called Polychlorinated 
Biphenyls (PCBs). Congress banned the manufacture and importation of 
PCBs in 1976 as part of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). PCBs 
when released into the environment collect in the body and cause a 
broad range of adverse health effects including cancer, reproductive 
damage, and birth defects. When incinerated, PCBs release

[[Page H8571]]

dioxin--one of the most toxic chemicals known. PCBs accumulate in the 
environment and move toward the top of the food chain, contaminating 
fish, birds, and ultimately humans.
  The language originally included in Section 321 of the Senate bill, 
S. 2060, would have nullified over twenty years of sound environmental 
law and jeopardized the health and safety of Americans by allowing the 
DoD to import foreign-produced PCBs into the United States. This 
proposed change was never reviewed by the Commerce Committee, which has 
jurisdiction over TSCA. It is also important to note that current law 
already provided an exemption that allows the DoD to return PCB waste 
to the United States if the PCBs were manufactured in the United 
States, shipped to a foreign military base, have been continuously 
under U.S. control, and now need to be returned for disposal. This 
exemption ensures that any PCBs exported from the United States to one 
of our foreign military installations can be returned.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Chairman and Ranking Member for striking 
the Senate language and instead directing the DoD to submit a detailed 
report to Congress on the true size and scope of the PCB problem at our 
overseas military bases. I look forward to working with the National 
Security, Commerce, and Transportation & Infrastructure Committees to 
address this problem and I urge my colleagues to support the 
legislation.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 373, 
nays 50, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 458]

                               YEAS--373

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--50

     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Campbell
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Filner
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Goode
     Gutierrez
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Kind (WI)
     Klug
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Morella
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Stark
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Aderholt
     Brady (TX)
     Burton
     Ehrlich
     Goss
     Johnson, Sam
     Kennelly
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Riley
     Shaw

                              {time}  1438

  Mrs. LOWEY and Mr. JACKSON of Illinois changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________