[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.
____________________