[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 132 (Monday, September 28, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9127-H9134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4103, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 1999

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House 
of Friday, September 25, 1998, I call up the conference report on the 
bill (H.R. 4103), making appropriations for the Department of Defense 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Friday, September 25, 1998, the conference report is considered as 
having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 25, 1998 at page H8657.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).


                             General Leave

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4103, and that 
I may include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the Defense 
Appropriations bill, which is a very good conference report, and it is 
a good defense appropriations bill as far as it goes. The

[[Page H9128]]

problem is, this bill does not make adequate funds available to meet 
some of the shortfalls that have been identified by the Army and the 
Navy and the Marine Corps and the Air Force.
  The bill is $488 million below the President's budget request, but it 
is only below the President's budget request because the military 
construction allocation was so low, so critically low that we had to 
transfer that much of our authority to the Subcommittee on Military 
Construction.
  Despite this, in the conference report before the House we added $202 
million over the budget request for a higher pay raise for the troops 
than was proposed by the President. We increased net funding for the 
Readiness accounts, Operation and Maintenance, by more than $500 
million over the President's budget, while we cut a lot of unnecessary 
administrative and headquarters costs. We added $370 million over the 
budget request for National Guard and Reserve training and operations.
  We provided $135 million for the Department of Defense-sponsored Peer 
Review Breast Cancer Research program. The President's budget requested 
no funds for that program. We also provided $50 million for the DOD-
sponsored Peer Review Prostate Cancer Research program, again funds 
that were not included in the budget request. We provided $735 million 
for Defense counter-drug and drug interdiction programs.
  Mr. Speaker, the list of the needs of the Department of Defense and 
the services is very long, and some of the more obvious are:


               FY 1999 President's Budget is Not Adequate

       Under the President's proposed FY 1999 defense budget, this 
     will be the fourteenth straight year defense spending has 
     fallen, when inflation is taken into account (every year 
     since FY 1985). The cumulative decline since 1985 is nearly 
     40 percent.
       When considered in constant dollars, the President proposed 
     FY 1999 defense budget is the lowest in nearly forty years.
       Moreover, the President's proposed plan for defense over 
     the next five years (FY 1999-2003) is more than $54 billion 
     less than what is needed to keep up with inflation.


               force structure cuts/increased deployments

       The size of the active duty military force has been cut by 
     36 percent (or over 700,000 troops) over the past ten years.
       Yet that smaller force is being asked to deploy more and 
     more often.
       Army overseas deployment are up 300 percent from the rates 
     sustained during the Cold War. This year, on average, on any 
     given day one of three Army soldiers is deployed outside of 
     the United States.
       The Army had 18 active divisions during Desert Storm. We 
     are down to 10 divisions today.
       For the Navy today, on any given day 57 percent of its 
     ships are at sea on deployment. In 1992 the figure was 37 
     percent.
       The number of Air Force personnel deployed away from home 
     today is four times higher than in 1989--yet the Air Force is 
     more than one-third smaller.
       Through FY 2003, the President budget plans on cutting a 
     total of 103,000 active duty and reserve military personnel 
     from existing levels (54,000 active duty and 49,000 reserve 
     personnel).
       So while their missions are going up, because of budget 
     constraints the military continues to shrink in size.


                           manpower problems

       The services are having growing problems retaining 
     personnel. Some examples:
       Air Force pilot retention is down significantly. A few 
     years ago the re-enlistment rate was near 75 percent. Today 
     it is at 36 percent, well below the Air Force target of 58 
     percent.
       Both the Navy and the Air Force are well below their 
     targets for re-enlistments of first-term personnel. The Air 
     Force is 18 percent below it re-enlistment goal, the Navy 7 
     percent. A recent Navy Times survey reveals that that 75 
     percent of respondents intend to leave the service.


                           readiness problems

       Mission-capable rates for both Air Force and Navy aircraft 
     have dropped every year since 1991. There are increasing 
     shortages of spare parts and cannibalization of existing 
     aircraft is on the rise. Last year Congress had to add over 
     $600 million for aviation spare parts. CINCPAC has testified 
     that his command's cannibalization rate has doubled since 
     1996.
       Due to funding shortages the Army has cut programmed tank 
     training by over 20 percent in each of the past two years.


                      Funding and budget problems

       For FY 1999, the military services and the Guard have 
     provided Congress with specific program shortfalls of $12 
     billion that are not funded in the President's budget.
       The President's FY 1999 budget proposes cutting the 
     Military Construction budget by over $1.4 billion from 
     current levels--a 15 percent cut.
       The President's FY 1999 budget cuts Army, Marine Corps and 
     Air Force depot maintenance by over $315 million from current 
     levels. Army depot maintenance is proposed for a one-year 
     reduction of 23 percent, while Marine Corps depot maintenance 
     is cut by 40 percent.
       The President's FY 19999 budget cuts real property repair 
     and maintenance by nearly 15 percent, or over $600 million 
     from this year's levels.
       The President's FY 1999 budget proposes cutting Research 
     and Development by nearly $600 million, or a 2 percent cut.


           personnel and readiness-related funding shortfalls

       The President's FY 1999 budget does not contain any funding 
     for the Bosnia deployment. This is a shortfall of nearly $1.9 
     billion.
       The Service Chiefs have identified FY 1999 personnel/
     readiness shortfalls of nearly $3.3 billion, including: 
     Personnel: $250 million short;
       O&M: over $3 billion short, including depot maintenance 
     ($350 million short), real property maintenance ($1.3 billion 
     short), spare parts ($256 million short), active and reserve 
     forces training ($400 million short), and base operations 
     ($750 million short).
       Army Chief of Staff Reimer told you: ``If we can't get 
     these shortalls fixed, the Army is going under.''


                    Weapons modernization shortfalls

       The Joint Chiefs of Staff have repeatedly identified a need 
     for annual procurement funding of $60 billion. The FY 1999 
     budget proposes only $48 billion. Under the President's 
     budget, the ``$60 billion procurement target'' will not be 
     reached for another three years (FY 2001).
       For FY 1999, the Service chiefs have identified another $5 
     billion in shortfalls relating to procurement and RDTE.
       This includes $1 billion in ``non-glamorous'' items such as 
     trucks/engineering vehicles ($230 million short), basic 
     equipment for soldiers ($245 million) and modifications for 
     aging equipment ($457 million).


                service-specific modernization problems

       Army: The Army's medium truck fleet currently averages over 
     25 years old. More than one-half of the current inventory 
     qualifies for antique license plates. Under the current 
     budget plan this fleet will not be replaced for another 30 
     years.
       The Army has a requirement for 18,000 additional HMMWV 
     vehicles. The FY 1999 budget proposes buying 9 vehicles.
       Navy: The Navy budget proposes construction of only six 
     ships in FY 1999 and is at similar levels for the foreseeable 
     future. This is far below the ten ships per year which are 
     needed to support the current fleet level of 326 ships (which 
     is a far cry from the Reagan-era goal of a ``600 ship 
     Navy'').
       Marine Corps: Commandant of the Marine Corps has said 
     repeatedly: ``My annual procurement budget is $500 million 
     short.''
       In the FY 1999 budget the Marines are getting $750 million 
     in procurement. This means the USMC modernization budget is 
     funded at only 60 percent of requirements.
       Air Force: For FY 1999 the Air Force is requesting 
     procurement of only two fighter aircraft. If approved by the 
     Congress this would be the lowest in the history of the Air 
     Force.

[[Page H9129]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE98.001
     


[[Page H9130]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE98.002
     


[[Page H9131]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28SE98.003
     


[[Page H9132]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I wish to engage in a colloquy 
with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. Let me say, I was in a markup in another committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) on a colloquy regarding two 
important Department of Defense health care initiatives, AIMCARE and 
the Composite Health Care System II.
  Mr. Chairman, DOD has competitively selected Anesthesia Information 
Management System, AIMCARE, that automates the collection of operating 
room data and clinical processes. This system offers DOD significant 
cost savings of over 70 percent with ``Enterprise'' implementation 
rather than ``hospital by hospital'' implementation. This 70 percent 
savings a represents savings of over $10 million, that is being made 
available in the first quarter of fiscal year 1999.
  Am I correct in my understanding that, resources permitting, the 
Department is interested in taking advantage of this opportunity?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would respond that the gentleman 
is absolutely correct in his understanding.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I thank the gentleman. With regard to the 
CHCSII, I have raised concerns with the chairman that, although I 
support the conference report which authorizes DOD to do field testing 
of this system at Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, I 
hope to receive an assurance that since current software development 
and integration is taking place in the national capital region, that 
these activities will be maintained in the national capital region.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the 
gentleman from Virginia that it is the intent of the conferees to 
maintain software integration and development for the CHCSII system in 
the national capital region.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
hard work on this vital legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman and I this year have visited a number of 
installations throughout the country. We found shortages over the last 
2 or 3 years, and the list that the chairman put in the Record, I hope 
Members will pay attention to.
  Readiness has slipped substantially. Some of our units are deployed 
that are not C-1, and that is a dangerous situation. As a matter of 
fact, we feel there are shortages which really hurt our national 
security. Without the supplemental, this bill will not be adequate. It 
is absolutely essential that we pass a supplemental, not offset, and I 
look forward to working with the chairman, and I am hoping we can get 
an adequate amount of money for Y2K, for computer security, for Bosnia, 
and for O&M in the supplemental.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to pay tribute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha) for the great job and the support that he has given us as we 
prepared this bill in the subcommittee and in the full committee and on 
the floor of the House, and then through the conference with the other 
body.
  Also, I would like to mention our counterparts in the Senate, Senator 
Ted Stevens and Senator Dan Inouye, as we worked closely with them for 
weeks leading up to our final conference. We found them to be very 
cooperative, very constructive, and certainly committed to the security 
of our Nation.
  Each and every member of our subcommittee has a vast amount of 
knowledge about our National Security that they bring to the table. In 
addition to Jack on that side of the aisle, Norm Dicks, Marty Sabo, 
Julian Dixon, and Pete Visclosky all have made valuable contributions 
throughout the years they have served on this subcommittee. On our side 
of the aisle we have Jerry Lewis, Joe Skeen, Dave Hobson, Henry 
Bonilla, George Nethercutt, Ernest Istook, and Duke Cunningham. All of 
them devote a tremendous amount of time and energy helping us craft 
this bill.
  In addition we are fortunate to have Chairman Bob Livingston, and 
Ranking Minority Member Dave Obey serving on this subcommittee. They 
provide valuable leadership during the particularly tough times as we 
bring this bill through the process.
  There are two other members that I have saved for last. They are Joe 
McDade and Bill Hefner who are both retiring this year, Joe, Bill, and 
I all joined this subcommittee together 18 years ago and this will be 
the last time that it will be my privilege to bring a bill to the floor 
with them.
  Joe McDade has dedicated his entire life to this institution. No 
constituency in the Nation, is better represented than the people of 
the 10th district of Pennsylvania. Anywhere you go in his district you 
will come across some project that would not be there if it weren't for 
Joe. He is a great Congressman, and a loving husband and father. I will 
miss him, but as one who also has a young son I know he will be very 
happy with the time he will now have to do the things we all would like 
to do with our growing boys. Joe, thank you for being my friend.
  Bill Hefner is one of the most unique members in the Congress. Behind 
that self depreciating personality and slow Southern drawl is a very 
intelligent Congressman who has used his considerable legislative 
talent to make the quality of life much better for millions of service 
members and their families. I have had the privilege of traveling with 
Bill and his wife Nancy to some of the hot spots in the world. He is a 
true patriot and great member of this body. Bill we will all miss you.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call special attention to the 
staff of our subcommittee. I am providing all of the names of all of 
our staffers for the record, including the associate staff members of 
our committee members, because they have all contributed just 
tremendously to the work of our subcommittee.
  I do want to specifically mention the chief of staff and the clerk of 
the subcommittee, Kevin Roper, who has spent many, many long hours, 
many, many days, many weeks, many months, getting us to where we are 
today. I would say that Kevin has a brain somewhat like a computer. One 
can punch up almost any subject and he can bring it up, and if one 
checks it out one will find that it is very accurate.
  Also, Greg Dahlberg, who represents the minority on the subcommittee, 
and who is equally aggressive in meeting the responsibilities of the 
subcommittee. I take my hat off and salute both of them and the staffs 
who worked with them.
  Jack and I are very fortunate to have a professional staff which is 
beyond a doubt the best on the hill. They also work many long hours and 
have become true professionals in their areas of expertise. They are 
Doug Gregory, Alicia Jones, Dave Kilian, Betsy Phillips, Julie 
Pacquing, Greg Walters, Trish Ryan, Tina Jonas, Paul Juola, Steve 
Nixon, Dave Norquist, Jenny Mummert, and Sherry Young. Julie Pacquing 
is retiring this year after many years of service to the Appropriations 
Committee. She has played a very valuable role particularly in the 
Intelligence part of our lives that we can't talk about and she will be 
missed by all of us. I also want to note that Trish Ryan and her 
husband Terry, and Steve Nixon and his wife Nancy are about to become 
parents for the first time. We are all one big happy family on this 
subcommittee and we all look forward to the births of Trish and Steve's 
children.
  I also want to take this opportunity to thank the staff members of 
the full committee who hardly ever get any recognition, but play very 
important roles in putting all of our products together. They are ably 
led by Jim Dyer our Staff Director. We also appreciate the good work of 
Dennis Kedzior, John Mikel, Chuck Parkinson, Elizabeth Morra, Di Kane, 
Tracey La Turner, Sandy Farrow, Theodore Powell, and Larry Boarman. At 
the Computer Shop we also want to thank Ken Marx and Dale Oak. For this 
conference alone we had 12 computer runs. In case you are interested 
there are 2,686 separate line items that we track in this bill, 947 of 
which were in conference.
  Each member of our committee also has staff who play an important 
role. At the risk of leaving someone out, let me thank them for all of 
their work throughout the year. They are Jake O'Donnell, Letitia White, 
Bruce Donisthorpe, Kenny Kraft, Marc Lubin, Rob Neal, Nancy Nowak, Bill 
Berl, Les Dixon, Steve McBee, Irene Schecter, Dan Beck, Alan

[[Page H9133]]

Dillingham, Paul Cunningham, and John McNutt. In particular, I want to 
thank Paul Cambon and Carman Scialabba who work for Bob Livingston and 
Jack Murtha.
  And finally, I want to thank a couple of people who serve on my 
personal staff and Jack's who help us in too many ways to mention here. 
They are my Administrative Assistant Harry Glenn and Jane Porter of my 
office. In Jack's office I want to thank Colette Marchesini-Pollock.
  As I said in the beginning, this is a very involved process, creating 
a conference agreement appropriating $250 billion. There are a lot of 
very capable members and staff who work many many long hours throughout 
the year to produce this product, but particularly at this time of the 
year. I thank each and every one of you, and I also thank your families 
who lend you to us, particularly mine. We know that this work is tough 
on our families and we appreciate your understanding. We know that 
there are some back to school nights that don't get attended, and some 
high school football games and half time shows that are missed. We know 
there are birthday parties that get postponed, as well as baby showers. 
But please know that this Congressman, and this Congress appreciate 
your unselfish contribution to the National Security of this great 
Nation.
  Also, I would be remiss if I did not mention the staff of the 
subcommittee in the Senate, headed by Steve Cortese, because they have 
also been extremely cooperative and extremely constructive in the 
effort that we have put forth.
  On the Senate side, Steve Cortese and Charlie Houy, as Majority and 
Minority Staff Directors, work together and with our staff in a very 
accommodating manner. They have assembled a very talented group of 
professional staffers, and let me thank each of them here for their 
work on behalf of the Conference: Mary Marshall, John Young, Sid 
Ashworth, Susan Hogan, Gary Reese, Tom Hamkins, Carolyn Willis, and 
Mazie Mattson. They also rely on help from the Full Committee including 
Jay Kimmitt, Dona Pate, and Justin Weddle.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support passage of the Fiscal 
Year 1999 Department of Defense Conference Report.
  Mr. Young and Mr. Murtha deserve credit for putting together an 
outstanding conference report. In my four years on the National 
Security Subcommittee, this bill was certainly the most difficult to 
reach agreement on, because of the very tight constraints imposed by 
the Balanced Budget Agreement. I think all of the members of the 
Subcommittee would agree that our allocation this year was far below 
what is needed to meet the needs of the Department of Defense. Despite 
these pressures, our Subcommittee staff once again worked long hours to 
put together a very balanced package that addresses the immediate needs 
of the Defense Department.
  I commend the efforts of the Chairman and Ranking Member on behalf of 
the health research programs contained within this bill. The Department 
of Defense oversees some of the most productive health research efforts 
sponsored by the federal government, with very real quality of life 
benefits for our men and women in uniform. We were not able to do all 
that we would have liked for health research, but I believe this 
conference package addresses some of the most urgent research needs of 
the Department of Defense. I am particularly supportive of the funding 
this bill provides for diabetes research. In Fiscal Year 1998, we were 
able to provide $4 million to initiate a diabetes detection, prevention 
and care program for the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, 
utilizing the technology and methods of the Joslin Diabetes Center. 
While I wish we had been able to maintain the House funded level of 
$6.4 million for this program in this bill, the $4.5 million the 
conference agreement provides will allow continuation of the Diabetes 
Pilot Program, [Program Element # 630002, Project # 9411]. I anticipate 
significant findings from this promising project, which will benefit 
soldiers and their families alike.
  I hope that Fiscal Year 1999 marks the low point for defense 
spending. We continue to face shortfalls in all accounts and urgently 
need to correct the downward trend for defense spending. But within the 
constraints imposed by the Balanced Budget agreement, this is an 
excellent bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support 
of H.R. 4103, the Conference Report on Defense Appropriations. I want 
to recognize the hard work of our chairman, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young). He, along with the other conferees and the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee staff, faced many difficult choices in 
putting together this bill, and I commend them for all their hard work.
  As many people are learning, the Department of Defense is facing less 
funding for the fourteenth straight year. Our armed forces are forced 
to do more with less. The conferees face difficult decisions in 
determining how much to provide for troop support, operations and 
maintenance, procurement of new and existing vehicles and weapon 
systems, and investing in future technology and weapons development.
  I think this bill strikes an important balance. It provides a pay 
increase of 3.6 percent for military personnel. It provides an extra 
$500 million over the President's request for Operations and 
Maintenance, the so-called ``readiness accounts.'' The frequent 
overseas deployments of our troops are siphoning funds from these 
accounts, and the House Members recognize the importance of 
replenishing funds for training and maintenance.
  Most importantly, this conference report reflects the importance of 
continuing to develop new technologies and weapons systems. As we try 
to prepare and equip our troops for the battlefields of the future, 
countless engineers are working in government laboratories and research 
facilities to develop the weapons, the ammunition, the vehicles and the 
technology our armed forces need to defend the United States. The 
military's research and development is critical to keeping our men and 
women in uniform safe and well-equipped wherever they serve, whether 
home or abroad.
  This bill allows for these important efforts to continue and expand. 
I thank the conferees for providing an additional $4 million for the 
Crusader Advanced Field Artillery System, which is being developed by 
the men and women at Picatinny Arsenal in my district. As I have said 
before, this critical program is a key element of the Army's long-term 
plans, and is faster and more lethal than the Paladin tank, which is 
currently in use.
  Mr. Speaker, every day our men and women in uniform put their lives 
on the line to defend us. They deserve to have the tools they need to 
protect us, and should be compensated for their work. We cannot forget 
our debt to them, and we must work to provide them with the support 
they need to do their jobs. We owe them nothing less.
  Today we vote to provide funds, support our soldiers and all those 
who prepare and equip them. An affirmative vote assures that this 
critical work continues.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express serious reservations about 
the defense appropriations conference report. I do not dispute the 
funding decisions made by the conferees. In the main, Chairman Young 
and Mr. Murtha have brought back to the House a bill that addresses the 
pressing defense needs of the Nation in a manner as consistent with the 
authorization bill as they possibly could have.
  As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and 
Facilities, however, I am concerned about several authorization 
provisions in this bill.
  Buried in this legislation are six real property matters that should 
be addressed in the defense authorization process. Section 8132 would 
authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to convey excess relocatable 
housing units at Malmstrom Air Force Base. Section 8139 mandates the 
Secretary of the Air Force to convey certain property in the State of 
New Hampshire. Section 8140 would permit the Secretary of the Navy to 
engage in a lease of property to the University of Central Florida. 
Section 8141 would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to lease 
certain property from the City of Phoenix near Luke Air Force Base. 
Section 8143 would provide the authority to the Secretary of the Navy 
to convey property with consideration to the City of Seattle and, 
finally, section 8144 would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey an Army Reserve Center to the City of Reading, Pennsylvania.
  None of these real estate matters, all properly within the 
jurisdiction of the authorization committee, were raised with the 
committee during consideration of the defense authorization bill nor 
were they raised with conferees during negotiations with the Senate on 
H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. 
None of these provisions were in the House-passed version of the 
defense appropriations bill. Most of these provisions came to 
conference as amendments to the Senate version of H.R. 4103 while the 
bill was being considered on the floor in the other body. Some of the 
provisions have murky origins in the conference itself.
  None of the offending provisions, to the best of my understanding, 
address an urgent need that cannot wait for the next authorization 
cycle. These provisions may have merit, but none have been reviewed 
adequately. To his credit, Chairman Young fought to keep these 
provisions--and more--out of this bill. Regretfully, he was not 
completely successful. As a chairman, I understand what it takes to get 
out of conference. Compromise with the other body is a necessary 
component of any conference, but we should refrain from needlessly 
blurring the line between the authorization and appropriations process.

  Beyond the real estate issues contained in this bill, I am deeply 
concerned about two

[[Page H9134]]

other provisions in the area of base closure and realignment.
  Section 8142, which would give the Secretary of the Army the 
authority to retain military family housing at Fort Buchanan, Puerto 
Rico, in support of the relocation of U.S. Army South, is a direct 
contravention of a decision made in the 1995 BRAC round to dispose of 
those units.
  Many in this House have criticized the President for his 
circumvention of the BRAC process for political reasons at McClellan 
Air Force Base and Kelly Air Force Base. While section 8142 is intended 
to help the Army and is not purely political, it's effect is the same. 
We should not begin to engage in a case-by-case undoing of prior BRAC 
decisions for any reason in the absence of an authorized realignment 
process. I hope we are not opening Pandora's box should this 
legislation receive the approval of the House today.
  Finally, I question the wisdom of requiring the Secretary of the Air 
Force to expend $7.6 million from the base closure and realignment 
accounts for demolition and other base conversion activities at Norton 
Air Force Base. The expenditures required by section 8145 are not 
related to any military mission and they are not required to comply 
with routine environmental remediation requirements. It is extremely 
unwise to tap the BRAC accounts to subsidize local reuse efforts. In 
that context, I find it equally unwise to continue the practice of 
permitting the use of other DOD resources for conversion activities at 
other BRAC locations.
  For these reasons, and despite the fact that this is otherwise a very 
good bill, I regret that I must vote ``no.''
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to expres smy strong support 
for the conference report to H.R. 4103, the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I would also like to take this 
opportunity to recognize the distinguished Chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security for his role in 
crafting a conference report that truly reflects our nation's 
priorities and ensures the continued preeminence of our military. He is 
to be commended for acknowledging the effect quality of life issues has 
on our military's performance.
  I am especially pleased with the provisions that express our concern 
for the welfare of the men and women in the armed services and their 
families. H.R. 4103 includes $35 million for Impact Aid, a program 
which provides funds to schools that experience a reduced property tax 
base as a result of their location near a military installation. 
Military personnel should not be forced to choose between their career 
and their children's education. This conference report also includes a 
much needed 3.6 percent military pay raise, a half percent above what 
was requested. Mr. Chairman, quality of life issues in our military 
have been neglected for too long. It is time that we address them and I 
believe that this conference report begins to do that. I urge my 
colleagues to give this conference report their strongest support.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge enactment and passage of 
this conference report, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________