[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 105 (Thursday, July 22, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H6253-H6295]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 257 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2561.

                              {time}  1527


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2561) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Camp in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise first to ask the membership for their support 
for this very important bill. It involves the national defense of our 
country. In doing so, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my personal 
appreciation to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been 
not just cooperative, but who have been truly professional in the best 
possible sense in presenting their viewpoints regarding a number of 
items that are very important and will consider as we go forward with 
the debate.
  Most particularly I would like to express my appreciation to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) who is the chairman 
of the full committee. He essentially was my trainer as I assumed this 
job, for he chaired the committee before I did. He has always reflected 
the best of professionalism in the work of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and I want him to know that I intend in the future to 
emulate him every step of the way if I have the chance to be here as 
long as he will be here.
  I want to express our appreciation for his fine leadership.
  To my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) who has been my partner in this process every 
step of the way, he can move a bill in the most expeditious fashion of 
any Member I know of in the House. Because of that I welcome him to 
this discussion today.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the pleasure today of brining to the floor the 
fiscal year 2000 Defense appropriations bill. This important 
legislation will, for the first time in 15 years, provide a real 
increase in spending for our Nation's Armed Forces.
  Congress has made it clear that as we enter the new millennium, we 
must do everything possible to ensure that we remain the strongest 
country on Earth. With this bill, we are setting a course that will 
make America so strong that other countries of the world will realize 
there are better pathways to economic opportunity than war.
  I must say at the outset that the new chairman of this subcommittee 
is deeply indebted to the former chairman, Bill Young--who now leads 
the full committee. I am deeply grateful for his leadership and his 
strong support of this bill.
  I would also like to express my deep respect and gratitude to my 
ranking member and trusted friend, Jack Murtha. Jack has been more than 
a colleague--he has been a partner in putting together a bill 
addressing some of the most urgent needs of our military. Jack, I 
salute you and I thank you.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation provides $267.9 billion in new 
discretionary spending authority for FY 2000. It meets all budget 
authority and outlay limits set in the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation.
  This bill provides $17.4 billion more than appropriated in FY 1999 
and is $4.6 billion above the administration's FY 2000 budget request.
  Let me take a few minutes to outline some of the highlights of this 
bill:
  This legislation provides $72 billion to meet the most critical 
personnel needs of our military. One of our top priorities has been to 
improve the training, benefits, and quality of life to ensure that the 
armed services retain their most valuable asset--the men and women who 
serve their country in uniform.
  There are presently 2.25 million men and women serving in our Armed 
Forces, Reserves, and National Guard. These personnel, as well our 
colleagues, will be pleased to know that this bill funds a 4.8-percent 
pay raise for our troops.
  This pay increase will help alleviate the struggle some of our 
military families face to make ends meet. We are convinced we must do 
more to attract highly qualified individuals and reward them for making 
a career out of service to their fellow Americans. With all of the 
services falling short on recruiting goals. and commanders warning they 
need even more troops, it is imperative that the Congress and the 
Pentagon make this one of our top budget priorities for years to come.
  We added $592 million in this bill over the administration's budget 
request to enhance recruiting, retention, and quality of life 
initiatives for all services, and bonuses for Air Force pilots who 
sustained America's status as a superpower during the recent Kosovo 
engagement.
  With this bill, Congress is making a commitment to our men and women 
in uniform saying in essence, ``We intend to support you as you go 
forward with a great career and promising future serving our country in 
the armed services.''
  The bill provides $93.7 billion for operations and maintenance needs, 
including $1.8 billion for contingency operations in Asia and Bosnia. 
My colleagues should also know that this bill contains on funding for 
peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo.
  The bill also includes $37.2 billion for R&D including $3.9 billion 
for our Nation's ballistic missile defense.
  Defense health is funded at $11 billion. Some $484 million is 
provided for Defense medical research including $175 million for breast 
cancer research and $75 million for prostate research.
  Finally, this package includes $53 billion for procurement. While 
this bill reaffirms our commitment to a strong national defense, it 
also reestablishes the important oversight role of the Congress in 
ensuring that tax dollars are spent both efficiently and effectively.
  To that end, the bill recommends cuts of more than $3.7 billion in 
over 280 line items. The most notable item--and one that has received a 
great deal of attention as of late--is the bipartisan decision to 
reduce spending on

[[Page H6254]]

the F-22 program by $1.8 billion in the next fiscal year.
  This funding, requested by the Air Force, would procure the first six 
F-22 aircraft. With the broad, bipartisan support of the Speaker, 
Minority Leader Gephardt, Chairman Young, and Ranking Member Obey, the 
full committee endorsed the proposal to declare a ``pause'' in the 
procurement of these aircraft.
  While many in the Air Force may question the decision, some of the 
most prodefense Members of the House are sending an important message. 
The Air Force has such tremendous needs in so many other areas--air 
tankers, airlift transports, aerial reconnaissance--that we believe it 
is imperative for the Air Force to reassess its priorities.

  It is important to note that the funding that would have gone for 
procurement of six F-22's--some $1.8 billion--is being redirected to a 
wide range of other priorities, including the purchase of eight F-15 
fighters, five F-16 fighters, and eight KC-130J Air tanker planes. 
Additional funds will be used for technological improvements to help 
our current fighter fleet maintain its air superiority.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say this: It is my view that we have 
had too many years of reductions in national defense spending. It's 
time we realize that if America is going to lead for peace and freedom 
in the world into the next century, we've got to do some with budgets 
that are strong and reflect our national priorities. This legislation 
is a positive step in that direction and I strongly encourage its 
passage today.
  To say the least, a great deal of time and energy went into producing 
this legislation. It literally would not have been possible without the 
work of some of the finest professional staff on the Hill. I 
particularly want to thank the following people: Doug Gregory, Tina 
Jonas, Alicia Jones, Paul Juola, David Kilian, Jenny Mummert, Steven 
Nixon, David Norquist, Betsy Phillips, Trish Ryan, Greg Walters, and 
Sherry Young of the subcommittee staff, Also Gregory Dahlberg of the 
minority staff, and Arlene Willis, Jim Specht, Julie Hooks, Grady 
Bourn, and David LesStrang on my office staff.
  I want to especially note the dedication and tireless effort of both 
Kevin Roper and Letitia White, who have literally committed the last 
several months of their lives to this effort.

[[Page H6255]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JY99.000



[[Page H6256]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JY99.001



[[Page H6257]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JY99.002



[[Page H6258]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the administration has two principal objections to this 
bill. The first is that they oppose the committee decision to cut out 
funds for the production of the F-22, and I flatly disagree with them 
on that. I think the committee has made the right choice.

                              {time}  1530

  Secondly, the administration opposes a number of decisions that 
inflate the cost of this bill. This bill, in fact, comes in about $16 
billion over last year, and on that I largely agree with the 
administration.
  I will be voting against this bill because Congress, primarily the 
authorizing committee, has refused to act on another round of base 
closings, which could save us about $20 billion by the year 2005. We 
have seen use of budget gimmickry to artificially inflate the size of 
this bill, and for those reasons, I do not feel comfortable at this 
time in supporting this bill.
  But I do want to say that I think the committee deserves the support 
of the House and its congratulations for making the correct decision on 
the F-22. The F-22, no doubt about it, is a beauty of an airplane. It 
is like a Jaguar or a Cadillac. It would be a great plane to have if we 
had all of the money in the world, but the problem is that its costs 
are taking off faster than the airplane is expected to if it is ever 
constructed.
  Secondly, the General Accounting Office says that we certainly do not 
need it yet for a good number of years.
  And thirdly, it is a $40 billion cancer which is eating a hole in the 
ability of the Air Force to meet a number of other high priority items. 
It gets in the way of high priority items such as additional jammers to 
protect our planes; it gets in the way of our ability to buy more 
tankers; it gets in the way of our ability to increase or transport 
capacity. So for those and a lot of other reasons.
  I simply want to congratulate the gentleman from California and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania. I think they have made the right choices 
for the right reasons, and I think this is a pro-defense action taken 
by the committee, and I would hope that the Congress would stick with 
that decision through the process.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  In the tradition of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our 
chairman, and when I was in charge here, I want to compliment the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for how fast he learned this job.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the 
full committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, I 
thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I will be brief. This is 
a good bill.
  This committee has worked extremely hard to do the right thing for 
America and for those who serve in our Armed Forces who keep America 
strong. This bill is a commitment on the part of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of this subcommittee, who has done 
an outstanding job in bringing together all of the thousands and 
thousands of issues that he is faced with as he proceeds with the 
development of this appropriations bill. He has done a remarkable job, 
and I applaud him and compliment him for having done so.
  Also, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), there is no 
Republican and there is no Democrat on this Appropriations Committee 
who relates more to national defense. The gentleman is the epitome of 
that. His commitment is to the security of our Nation and to the well-
being of those who serve in uniform.
  Just one more point without getting into the details of the bill. All 
of us on this committee have a commitment to do the very best we can to 
avoid getting into any wars or battles or combat by having a strong 
force. We are also committed to the proposition that if our Americans 
in uniform must go to war, must go to battle, that they will go, having 
had the very best training that can possibly be available to them, to 
have the very best weapons possible available to them to accomplish 
their mission and to give themselves protection at the same time. And 
that if we do, indeed, have to go to battle again, that we go with such 
a strong force, that we accomplish our mission while keeping our 
casualties at an extremely, extremely low rate.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) deserve just tremendous 
commendations, as do their staff. Having chaired this committee for the 
last 4 years, I can tell my colleagues that the staff have been so 
diligent, have put in so many hours and worked so hard, and they 
deserve a tremendous compliment as well.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address H.R. 
2561, the Defense Appropriations for FY 2000. This bill provides $266.1 
billion for Defense Appropriations, which represents a significant 
increase in defense spending. In general this bill addresses many of 
the concerns which face the Department of Defense, including military 
pay and benefits, readiness, and modernization shortfalls.
  It is clear from my interaction with the men and women in service to 
the nation's defense that they continually serve our nation with 
unwavering dedication. Whether it is in service to the refugees 
displaced from Kosovo, on guard at the border between North and South 
Korea, or in the skies over Iraq; our servicemen and servicewomen 
represent our nation and our values. Mr. Chairman, they are truly this 
nation's best ambassadors.
  Our nation owes our service members praise and thanks for the 
outstanding mission that they recently performed in the Balkans. I hope 
that this body will recognize General Wesley Clark for the 
extraordinary effort performed by him and the men and women he 
commanded during the operation.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this bill addresses some of the 
concerns of our service members. The bill appropriates funds for a 4.8% 
pay increase for military personnel. The increase is 0.5% more than the 
Employment Cost Index--an index used by the private sector to calculate 
wage increases--and will reduce the current pay gap between the 
military and the private sector to 13%. The bill also contains a series 
of increases of special pay and bonuses, including increases of: $300 
million in aviation continuation pay; $225 million for the basic 
allowance for housing; $39 million for enlistment bonuses; and $28 
million for selective reenlistment bonuses, including increasing 
monthly pay for diving duty, raising maximum bonuses for officers 
involved with nuclear programs, and increasing foreign language 
proficiency pay. All these measures are designed to attract the best 
candidates for our armed services and to bolster efforts to entice 
already qualified service members to remain in their respective 
services.
  This appropriation also includes funding for the Defense Health 
Program. The bill appropriates $11.1 billion to these initiatives, 
including $357 million for procurement and $250 million for research. 
The total also includes $175 million in funding for breast cancer-
related research and treatment, and $75 million for basic and clinical 
prostate cancer research. It also allocates $19 million for research 
into gulf war illnesses, equal to the president's request.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, this appropriation bill also addresses 
readiness and modernization issues. This bill provides $3.9 billion for 
ballistic missile defense, but does not mandate the establishment of a 
national missile defense system. It also includes funding for upgrades 
to existing B-2 Stealth bombers, almost $1.0 billion for upgrades and 
new purchases of existing Air Force fighter aircraft; funding for a new 
submarine; and additional appropriations for ammunition and other 
munitions depleted during our recent conflict with Yugoslavia.
  Mr. Chairman, though I am pleased to see the upgrades and new 
purchases of fighter aircraft, I was disappointed by the decision of 
the committee not to fund procurement of the F-22 fighter plane. The F-
22 is the Air Force's planned next generation, premier fighter, 
intended to replace the F-15, and designed to have both air-to-air and 
air-to-ground fighter capabilities. The aircraft has been the 
centerpiece of the Air Force's modernization program for the past 
decade.
  Richard Cohen, Secretary of Defense, has indicated that the 
cancellation of the F-22 will mean that the United States cannot 
guarantee air superiority in future conflicts. The F-15 and other 
fighters in the American arsenal will not provide the same dominance 
now enjoyed by the United States and any proposed upgrade will cost the 
same as the F-22 program. The F-22 is critical to the Air Forces 
mission to

[[Page H6259]]

maintain air superiority in the 21st century, as there are at least 
five foreign fighters already starting to eclipse the F-15. If nothing 
else can be learned from NATO's recent victory in the Balkans, it is 
that air superiority works.
  I will support H.R. 2561 and I ask my colleagues to consider full 
funding for the F-22 program.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY 2000 
Defense Appropriations bill. This legislation goes a long way in 
ensuring our country's military air superiority well into the future.
  An important element of this bill is the $440 million directed for 
the purchase of eight F-15E strike fighters. As many of us know, the F-
15 was the dominant aircraft in the Persian Gulf and Kosovo conflicts, 
and remains the most lethal and effective fighter in the world. It has 
maintained a perfect air combat record of 100 victories and zero losses 
since its introduction into the fleet. And with the upgrades funded by 
this legislation, this record can be extended well into the future. I 
am proud to note that the F-15's record of victory is due in large part 
to the men and women who build this aircraft for the Boeing Company in 
my hometown of St. Louis.
  The F-22, the Air Force's next-generation fighter aircraft that has 
been in development since the 1980s, has encountered problems in its 
cost and development schedule. Given these circumstances, it is 
essential that the Air Force preserve a high quality and robust strike 
fighter for the foreseeable future. Continued production of the F-15E 
aircraft is the only way to accomplish this goal.
  I commend the members of the Appropriations Committee for their 
responsible actions to ensure that we retain and enhance the 
capabilities required to protect America's security into the next 
century. I urge my colleagues to support this decision, and vote for 
this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and applaud 
the work of both the chairman, Mr. Lewis and the ranking member, Mr. 
Murtha. I believe the priorities which they have established in this 
bill are good for both our nation and for our nation's defense.
  Mr. Chairman, we are preparing to enter the 15th consecutive year of 
real decline in defense spending. I am one of those who believes that 
we cannot continue to put the military at risk.
  The funding constraints imposed by the balanced budget agreement make 
our choices more difficult. However, we still must ensure that other 
priorities do not drive us away from one of the primary 
responsibilities this Congress has, and that is ensuring our nation's 
defense.
  The difficult choices Chairman Lewis and ranking member Murtha had to 
make in developing the bill before us demonstrate the bipartisan spirit 
and dedication to the commitment all of us must follow when it comes to 
providing for the security of our nation.
  We all realize that the United States holds a unique position in the 
world. People all over the globe look to us for security and stability. 
It may not be fair, but it is reality.
  While our military forces are shrinking, operations around the world 
are increasing. The increased pace of peacekeeping, humanitarian 
relief, and other operations is forcing our Armed Forces to do more 
wiht less. However, doing more with less is not always conducive with 
ensuring the long term readiness of our armed services.
  Our forces which have served admirably in support of our operations 
in Kosovo and in Bosnia, as well as our continued enforcement of the 
no-fly zone over Iraq, are just some of the recent examples of our 
global leadership and responsibility. I continue to support our 
deployment of troops in these regions and believe the work they are 
accomplishing makes America a better place and the world a safer one.
  I say to both the chairman and the ranking member that their 
priorities are right for our nation, we need to stand up for those 
priorities and pursue them.
  I support this bill to appropriate $266 billion for critical defense 
needs in fiscal year 2000 and want to commend the committee for what is 
in the bill before us:
  A 4.8% military pay raise. Mr. Chairman, I support this well deserved 
raise and look forward to my colleagues supporting pay parity for our 
federal employees. As you know, the House included a provision, which I 
sponsored, in the recently passed emergency supplemental, that calls 
for pay parity between military and civilian employees.
  The reform of military retirement and special pay and bonuses that 
will give our military personnel greater incentives to stay until 
retirement.
  $576 million for continued development of the joint strike fighter.
  $2.7 billion for 36 F-18E/F aircraft for the Navy.
  $856 million for 11 V-22 Osprey aircraft for the Marines.
  $272 million for upgrades to the EA-6 prowler.
  $207 million for 19 black hawk helicopters for the Army, National 
Guard and $130 million for desperately needed unfunded equipment for 
the National Guard.
  In addition, I am especially proud of the committee's funding of 
important medical research including: $175 million for breast cancer 
research; and $75 million for prostate cancer research.
  I applaud the committee for funding these DOD priorities and for 
addressing the needs of our men and women in the armed services.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about this year's 
Defense Appropriations bill. I would like to commend Chairman Lewis and 
Ranking Member Murtha on the hard work they have done to craft this 
legislation.
  For the most part, this is a good piece of legislation. It addresses 
the serious need to deal with pay parity for our servicemen and women 
with a 4.8 percent pay increase for military personnel. The bill fully 
funds critical submarine programs and also includes funding to study 
the conversion of our ballistic missile submarines to conventional 
weapons platforms. It funds the army's crucial requirements for 
advanced helicopter procurements and research and development. Finally, 
it contains funding to test and certify new ejection seat technology 
for the Air Force. Technology has advanced significantly in this area 
and we can now filed a new pilot ejection system which can protect the 
lives of our pilots at greater speeds and heights, as well as smaller 
pilots than current models. the Committee has recognized these 
important issues and as unfailingly addressed them.
  However, there is one particular part of the bill about which I have 
grave concerns for the continued nation. It provides no funding at all 
for the Air Force's F-22 advanced tactical fighter program. The F-22 
modernization program is critical to the Air Force's mission to 
maintain air superiority in the 21st century.
  Since this cut was announced, I have met personally with Air Force 
Secretary Whitten Peters and Spoken with Air Force Chief of Staff 
General Michael Ryan. As a member of the Armed Services Committee I 
have sat through numerous classified threat briefings which demonstrate 
the critical need for this airplane, including several over the last 
two weeks specifically about the F-22.
  Yesterday morning I flew to Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to 
meet specifically with members of the First Fighter Wing's 94th 
Squadron under the command of General Ralph Eberhart. I spent the 
morning talking with several F-15 fighter pilots and crew chiefs. I 
think what they said needs to be part of this debate. So, I'd like to 
break for a minute from the political rhetoric that has clouded this 
issue and talk to you about what our airmen and women in the trenches 
have to say.
  Simply put, after an extended and victorious air campaign in the 
former Yugoslavia, members of this body are about to send a clear 
message to our pilots that we are unwilling to spend money to save 
lives. I guarantee that if, god forbid, we had lost an F-15 in that 
conflict, we would not be standing here having this debate today.
  The Air Force has ruled the skies and provided air superiority for 
all branches of the service for over 50 years. We cannot take this for 
granted and be lulled to sleep by our past success. The F-15 is clearly 
a great airplane. But the fact is that at least 5 foreign fighters are 
already starting to eclipse its technological envelope. Even more 
dangerous is the capability of advanced surface-to-air missiles like 
the Russian SA10, for sale openly on the international market.
  I have continually heard the argument that the answer is to upgrade 
the F-15 fleet with more technology. I asked the pilots if this was 
true. They told me that you can't bolt enough technology onto the craft 
for it to out-class emerging fighters and SAMs. the crew chiefs were 
clear that most aircraft would not be able to structurally take a major 
upgrade. Did you know that spare parts to maintain the F-15 are so hard 
to get now that most squadrons ground one fully functional aircraft 
just to strip for spare parts? It will cost about 440 million per plane 
to upgrade the F-15 fleet, and there is no way to retrofit stealth 
technology. Spending money to upgrade the F-15 will get you an airplane 
with 1/3 the capabilities of the F-22 for 90 percent of the price.
  Survivability is the key to a successful aircraft. The ability of the 
F-22 to cruise faster than the speed of sound without wasting fuel and 
using afterburners and its stealth capabilities are the key to 
survivability in the next century. The best we can hope for in 
upgrading the F-15 is near parity in the air. No one wants to enter a 
situation without an advantage where another person can kill you, and I 
cannot have it on my conscious to know that this Congress is asking 
exactly that of America's pilots.
  Some have argued that we will maintain air superiority because we 
will still be flying at a five to one numerical advantage against 
potential enemy threats. This is a reversal to the

[[Page H6260]]

Russian policy during the Cold War to build low-tech weapons in mass 
quantities on the premises that numbers would prevail. America took the 
initiative to provide our soldiers with the best technological 
equipment available, and it is under the legacy and success of that 
policy that we have the luxury to hold this debate today. I would not 
want my son or daughter to be the acceptable loss in this new post-cold 
war strategy.
  Finally, I would like to point out that, as a member of the Armed 
Services Committee, we dealt specifically with the cost issues 
associated with this program and fully funded the Air Forces F-22 
request in H.R. 1401, the Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 
2000, which passed the House overwhelmingly on June 10, 1999. This 
policy was echoed in both defense authorization and appropriation bills 
recently acted upon in the other body. We recognized the Air Force's 
and Department of Defense's efforts to bring the cost of this program 
under control, and required the Secretary of the Air Force to report 
directly to Congress on their continuing efforts to meet the mandated 
spending caps designated for this program. I do not see significant 
reason barely a month later, to warrant the drastic shift in national 
defense policy this legislation would promote.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their commitment and dedication 
shown in drafting this important legislation, and hope that they will 
remain open to continue the important debate on this issue and work 
with us as the bill moves forward in Conference Committee.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues no doubt 
recognize, one of the major challenges that the Department of Defense 
faces in the next century is providing adequate sealift capability in 
time of national emergency. This will become even more important as we 
complete the shift from a Cold war strategy which had large numbers of 
heavy forces forward deployed to a security posture that relies on 
mobile forces based in the United States.
  Concerned about this looming shortage of sealift for overseas 
requirements, the Department has been proceeding with the construction 
of a fleet of advanced cargo vessels. However, even with this new 
construction, there will continue to be a deficiency of sealift 
capacity. To meet this deficiency, the Congress--under the leadership 
of then Senator Bill Cohen--created the National Defense Features 
program. The committees of jurisdiction have already authorized funds 
to commence the program. Once the commercial viability of a project has 
been demonstrated, I am sure the Appropriations Committee will be 
prepared to begin appropriating the necessary funds to cover the cost 
of adding defense features to eligible vessels.
  Under the program, new vessels would be constructed in U.S. shipyards 
and would operate under the American flag in regular commercial 
service, subject to call up in an emergency. Under one proposal that 
has the strong backing of Congress, ten refrigerated commercial car 
carriers would be built with special military features, such as 
strengthened, hoistable decks. During normal commercial service, the 
vessels would carry vehicles to the United States and refrigerated 
products on the return trip to Japan. In times of national emergency, 
the ships could carry military supplies throughout the Pacific in 
support of any necessary operations there. Other commercial ventures 
also have been conceived that would similarly promote our national 
security interests.
  I am concerned, however, that the Government of Japan has apparently 
been unwilling to formally endorse the proposed refrigerated car 
carrier proposal. Naturally, for any such initiative to succeed, there 
must be a sound commercial underpinning. This seems already to have 
been established. At this point in time, from the perspective of our 
two governments, the question thus would appear to be fundamentally 
this: would the project advance our mutual security interests? The 
short answer is yes. Moreover, it would appear that the proposal can be 
implemented without any apparent economic cost to the Government of 
Japan.
  I hope that the Prime Minister of Japan will personally endorse 
increased U.S.-flag participation in the car carrying trade under the 
national defense features program. I also hope the Administration will 
take whatever steps may be necessary to work with the Government of 
Japan to get agreement on the project. We need to get on to the task of 
building new ships, hoisting the American flag, and putting them out to 
sea with experienced American merchant mariners on board to promote our 
mutual security interests.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the distinguished chairmen 
(Mr. Young of Florida and Mr. Lewis of California), and the ranking 
member of the Defense appropriations subcommittee (Mr. Murtha) for 
their support of the Hummer and Sea Snake programs, both critical to 
meet the needs of the soldier and for the hard-working constituents of 
Indiana's Third Congressional District. I also wish to thank the 
distinguished members of the Defense subcommittee, including Pete 
Visclosky, Jim Moran, and Dave Hobson for their support and hard work 
in support of U.S. troop readiness and national security concerns.
  First, I would like to acknowledge their support for the High 
Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, also known as Hummer. Although 
the U.S. Army and Marine Corps budget requests for Hummer have been 
severely underfunded in recent years, I am pleased that both branches 
have adequately funded their requirements in the Fiscal 2000 budget. 
This bill fully funds the Pentagon's request for the Army, Marine 
Corps, and Air Force Hummer procurement requests.
  In recent years, the Hummer has enjoyed strong congressional interest 
and support. The extensive efforts of this committee on behalf of the 
Hummer have been of tremendous benefit to my constituents and have 
resulted in considerable savings for the Armed Services. More 
important, the Hummer has met, and in many cases exceeded, the needs of 
our brave troops in the field.
  As its track record clearly indicates, Hummers perform multiple 
missions and readiness requirements for the services including weapons 
platforms and tow carriers. The Hummer also serves as a platform for 
newly developed systems crucial to our readiness preparations. Just two 
years ago in Bosnia, an Up-Armored version of the Hummer that struck a 
14-pound anti-tank landmine provided enough protection to miraculously 
allow its three occupants to walk away without injury.
  Second, I wish to express my gratitude for the committee's support 
for the Sea Snake missile target program. At the present time, a 
missile target manufacturer in my district is competing for the Navy's 
next Supersonic Sea-Skimming Target (SSST) missile procurement 
contract. All I have ever sought for my constituents is that the Navy 
consider the Sea Snake proposal fairly and in an open competition. I 
would not ask the Navy nor the Congress to do anything more than that.
  While this bill includes strong report language directing the Navy to 
expedite the ongoing target missile competition, we should continue to 
closely assess the reliability of a Russian source for the Navy's SSST 
program, as proposed by one of the competitors. Additionally, I 
remained concerned that future procurement of the Russian-made MA-31 
will almost surely terminate the Navy's most reliable existing supplier 
of targets made in the United States.
  Earlier this year, the Navy notified the manufacturer that they have 
eliminated procurement funding for the remaining U.S.-made target 
systems. This action alone has already resulted in the layoff of more 
than 50 of my constituents. Therefore, I urge the Congress to recognize 
the impact of this funding shortfall and work to address the future and 
integrity of the Navy's missile target procurement strategy.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the FY00 Defense 
Appropriations Act and to express my support for the Air Force's F-22.
  I wish to commend the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. 
Lewis, for producing a bill that addresses the serious and evolving 
challenges facing our military. Under his guidance, the subcommittee 
has worked very hard to promote our national security within a 
constrained budget, and I believe the bill before us goes a long way 
toward addressing many of our most urgent military requirements.
  I am, however, troubled by the subcommittee's recommendation to cut 
$1.8 billion from the F-22 program. I certainly appreciate the 
subcommittee's concerns about the program and am fully aware of the 
substantial challenges it faced as it sought to reconcile military 
requirements with available resources. Nevertheless, I believe that the 
F-22 remains critical to maintaining the air superiority that has 
proven invaluable to the United States to date and will continue to be 
a fundamental requirement in the future if our interests are to be 
protected. Indeed, the F-22 program is the Air Force's number one 
priority.
  Mr. Chairman, although I support the bill before us on the whole, I 
look forward to working with the subcommittee chairman and other 
members of the committee to ensure that the F-22 is fully funded in the 
final bill.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, during this time of tight budget 
constraints, I want to acknowledge the efforts of my Republican 
colleagues who have insisted that we devote more resources toward our 
nation's defense. The FY 2000 Defense Appropriations bill offers relief 
for our men and women in uniform who protect and serve our nation in 
the armed services.
  Current events prove that the United States continues to serve 
security interests around the globe. With this in mind, we must address 
the deterioration of our military readiness. The funds provided by the 
FY 2000 Defense Appropriations bill are an important first step.
  This legislation will allow Congress to correct many shortcomings, 
including increased

[[Page H6261]]

health programs, an increase in military pay and additional defense 
weapons for our country. We need to continue to provide our soldiers 
with the resources they need to protect freedom and themselves.
  We must stop neglecting the needs of our military. It has always been 
one of the central purposes of the Appropriations Committee to provide 
the necessary resources to ensure that our military is second to none 
and I commend Chairman Lewis and the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Defense for their hard work and dedication to our nation's soldiers.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, as this Congress faces tight funding levels 
on all federal programs, once again, the Republication leadership has 
decided to substantially increase spending for the Pentagon. The DOD 
bill provides $288 billion, $8 billion more than the President 
requested, almost $10 billion more than the spending caps set by the 
1997 balanced budget law and $17.4 billion more than appropriated for 
1999. This bill blatantly steam rolls over the much touted budget rules 
and discipline the GOP has advertised. Thus, making a mockery of the 
vows to keep within budget limits simply by employing changing dates 
and previous ``emergency appropriations actions''.
  While this measure provides for a much needed military pay raise for 
our soldiers and sailors, a smart reduction in production of the 
unnecessary F-22 fighter, a much needed $19 million for further 
research into gulf war illness and $56 million in international 
humanitarian assistance, in total H.R. 2561 will seriously drain 
resources away from important people programs. Furthermore, with $1.2 
billion in research going forward, the F-22 is hardly down and out and 
will surely be back at its $200-300M a copy price. I need not remind my 
colleagues that just a few months ago, this House voted to appropriate 
nearly $11 billion in emergency spending for the Kosovo campaign. The 
final product of the House/Senate conference totaled $14.5 billion, 
roughly $8 billion more than the President's request. While I supported 
the U.S./NATO campaign, I did not support this emergency supplemental 
because the GOP insisted upon loading it down with wasteful and 
unnecessary military pork projects that were totally unrelated to the 
air campaign against the Serb aggression in Kosovo. Moreover, the 
Republican leadership chose to avoid the budget by funding FY 2000 
projects in that emergency measure, to avoid the budget rules.
  H.R. 2561 provides no funds for the current Kosovo peace keeping. 
This clearly assumes that more funds are needed in a supplemental or 
emergency spending request at a later date in year 2000. This is a 
fraudulent policy by spending on the hardware and then turning needed 
programs and funding into a crisis, apparently trying to justify 
emergency spending.
  The battle over the F-22 is in focus today. There is no threat which 
necessitates a next generation fighter. The F-22 program was initiated 
in 1981 to meet the evolving threat posed by the next generation of 
Soviet aircraft. The war in Kosovo demonstrated the superiority--both 
qualitative and quantitative--of the current fleet of F-15's and F-16's 
to maintain U.S. dominance in the skies. Not only were current fighters 
undefeated in their encounters with the limited ability Serbian 
fighters, but the Yugoslav Air Force was reluctant even to deploy their 
aircraft to challenge U.S. fighters. This scenario is a repeat of Iraq 
reluctance to challenge U.S. air dominance in the gulf war and later 
confrontations in the no-fly zones. Furthermore, the price tag of 
nearly $200-$300 million per plane has ballooned out of control 
However, while trying to eliminate the F-22, this measure diverts the 
funds to purchase more F-15's and F-16's, additional C-17 Air Force 
bombers and unrequested funding for eight KC-130J's. As a result, no 
new maintenance and savings are achieved. All this bill does is add 
more new hardware and weapon systems as substitute for fiscal 
discipline, and the prospect of buying F-22 at even a higher price 
tomorrow.
  Even though veterans suffer from inadequate health care, low income 
families lack public housing, our nations schools are crumbling, 
classrooms are overcrowded and seniors do not have necessary 
prescription drug coverage, the Republican-led majority continues to 
display an inability to address these important issues by again 
channeling limited resources under the budget caps to Pentagon 
spending. Our military superiority was demonstrated successfully in the 
Kosovo conflict. Our national defense technology and capabilities far 
outmatch any direct threat to our military forces. Our priorities ought 
to be investment in readiness, maintenance, and smart military service, 
not weapons systems alone. Limited and careful policy would not expend 
another $4 billion on a unproven and highly questionable missile 
defense system. This system passed one experiment, but has failed 
repeatedly to live up to its promise after three decades and at least 
$100 billion in tax payer spending. Reason would suggest that this is 
not prudent policy, but fears and the pressure of special interests has 
kept this policy moving forward no matter the cost and practicality.
  Congress must reassess our national priorities and focus upon our 
pressing needs. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I support the passage of the Fiscal Year 2000 
Defense Appropriations Bill. This legislation effectively addresses the 
growing quality of life, readiness, and modernization shortfalls facing 
today's military. It attempts to manage the competing pressures and 
risks associated with an expansive U.S. national security strategy and 
diminishing defense resources.
  I am particularly pleased that the House Appropriations Committee 
found merit in two worthwhile programs managed by innovative companies 
located in Washington State's 8th Congressional District. This bill 
allots $8 million to Asymetrix Learning Systems, Inc. for the 
development of an online education program for the Washington State 
Army National Guard. Additionally, it allocates $4 million to Adroit 
Systems, Inc. to develop Pulse Detonation Engine technology, which will 
allow the Navy to improve missile capabilities while reducing future 
procurement costs.
  Despite the positive steps this bill takes to improve our national 
security, I would like to take the opportunity to express my concern 
regarding the $1.8 billion reduction for the procurement of the F-22 
fighter. The F-22 Raptor is the Air Force's next-generation air-
superiority fighter, the aircraft that will take the lead in seizing 
control of contested airspace in wartime so that other aircraft can do 
their jobs. It is the only air-superiority fighter that the Air Force 
has in advanced development, and the first such aircraft developed 
since the 1970s.
  Recent trends in warfare suggest that whoever owns the sky and space 
above it will own the future. According to the Lexington Institute, the 
F-22 gives the only opportunity the Air Force has to ensure America's 
military continues to control the sky during the early decades of the 
21st century. No other tactical combat aircraft in service today has a 
similar capacity to successfully operate amid the emerging foreign-made 
air-to-air missile threat. And because it is survivable, no other 
American aircraft will be able to effectively engage in battle as close 
to the enemy as the F-22 Raptor.
  An April 27 statement by seven former defense secretaries emphasizes 
that continued development and production of the F-22 is essential to 
preserving U.S. command of the air. Additionally, even in a period of 
diminished threats, other nations will gradually overtake and surpass 
the fighting effectiveness of current U.S. fighters. Therefore, the 
agility, firepower, and situational awareness embodied in the F-22 must 
be funded.
  The decision to fund this project will have a long term strategic 
effect on America's defense capabilities. We must retain our ability to 
establish air dominance by supporting the continued procurement of the 
F-22 Raptor. The funding of this next-generation fighter is essential 
to the air superiority of the United States of America and the entire 
free world.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2561, the 
Department Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000. This bill 
carefully balances scarce resources by maintaining readiness, providing 
a much deserved pay raise for our troops and ensuring that our military 
continues its technological dominance over potential enemies. I urge 
support for this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this Administration has been dramatically and 
consistently underfunding our military, while at the same time, asking 
it to do more with less. Our troops have been committed to more 
operations in the last ten years than at any time since World War II. 
This has created a situation whereby we have excessive wear and tear on 
equipment and facilities. In addition, our soldiers, sailors and airmen 
are having to spend extraordinary time away from their homes and their 
families. While our troops have performed admirably, the time has come 
where they can no longer do more with less.
  The defense budget presented by the President fell far short of the 
needs that our military had requested. For instance, in my bill, 
Military Construction, there was not one request for a new unit of 
family housing in the Continental United States (CONUS) made by either 
the Army or the Navy. With a housing backlog that stretches for over 
ten years, and a real property maintenance backlog of almost a billion 
dollars, the needs of the services are real.
  In fact, in hearings before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, 
the services provided us with an unfunded priority list of over $11 
billion for this year alone, and over $150 billion during the next five 
years. While remaining within the budget caps, this Defense 
Appropriations bill begins to address this shortfall by providing an 
extra $2.8 billion above what the Administration felt would have been 
adequate. Highlights of the bill include: $300 million above the budget 
request for pilot bonuses; $854 million above the budget request for 
Quality of Life enhancements; $103

[[Page H6262]]

million above the budget request for recruiting; $2.8 billion above the 
budget request for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation; and 4.8 
percent pay raise (above the budget request)
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a step in the right direction. While it 
does not fix all of the problems that our military is facing today, it 
does take necessary steps to ensure that funds will be directed first 
to those items that are broken, and give our troops the tools they need 
to protect our country and our future.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, a French proverb says ``[w]ar is 
much too serious to leave to the generals.'' Mr. Speaker, I rise today 
to say exactly the opposite. War is far too important to be left to 
politicians.
  Today, the House stands on the verge of sending the Senate a bill 
that may very well terminate the F-22 program. On one side, we have a 
carefully planned, smoothly executed plan by politicians to scrap the 
fighter. On the other side, we have every general in the Pentagon 
telling us our national security will suffer a fatal blow if we choose 
to give up air dominance in the next century.
  In a letter to Congress last week, Secretary of Defense William Cohen 
told us that ``Canceling the F-22 program means we cannot guarantee air 
superiority in future conflicts.'' Six former Secretaries of Defense 
have echoed Secretary Cohen's words, calling the F-22 a ``essential'' 
program that must be fully funded.
  Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. If we cancel the F-22, we are 
making a decision to stake the lives of American soldiers on inferior 
equipment because some in Congress think they know more about air 
warfare than the United States Air Force.
  Ironically, canceling the F-22 won't even accomplish its stated goal 
of saving money. Secretary Cohen has told us the alternative to the F-
22--an upgraded F-15 (already over 25 years old)--will cost the same as 
the F-22, but will not provide air dominance. The Secretary has also 
told us--correctly--that not only will the Joint Strike Fighter or JSF 
be unable to fill the air superiority role, it will also be unable to 
handle its strike role without F-22 support. This is the legislative 
equivalent of rejecting a Cadillac in order to buy a Yugo for twice the 
price. The JSF is not, was never contemplated to be, and cannot be made 
into, the F-22. It is not an air-superiority fighter. It is a subsonic 
tactical fighter that goes into a conflict after the F-22 establishes 
air dominance. the JSF cannot itself establish air dominance.
  In September of 1939, Neville Chamberlain told the British people to 
go home and rest easy because he had purchased ``peace for our time.'' 
the following September, an unprepared Great Britain began a fight for 
its life with Nazi Germany. We must not make a long-term mistake for a 
short-term gain, by canceling the F-22. We must not allow our easy 
victory in Kosovo to lead us to mistakenly assume we will always have 
air superiority.
  Again, the facts are clear. First--this decision may very well end 
the F-22 program, by raising future costs so high we will not be able 
to restart it later. Second--without the F-22, American forces will to 
a certainty, be outgunned by the next generation of missiles and 
aircraft already nearing production by three nations (Russia, France, 
and Sweden), each of which is ready to use them or sell them to the 
highest bidders. Third--by giving up air superiority, we are 
encouraging our enemies to attack us and ensuring that young Americans 
will pay on the battlefields of the future; only a few short years 
away.
  In short, we will have rejected the wisdom of George Washington, who 
told Congress ``[t]o be prepared for war is one of the most effectual 
means of preserving peace.'' The ancient Chinese military strategist 
Sun Tzu said the same thing two thousand years ago when he wrote that 
``[v]ictorious warriors win first, and then go to war, while defeated 
warriors go to war first and then seek to win.'' Mr. Speaker, if 
Congress kills the F-22 program we will pay dearly later for ignoring 
this sage advice now.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Defense 
Subcommittee, I am proud to support the outstanding package that we put 
together under the leadership of Chairman Lewis and Mr. Murtha. H.R. 
2561 improves on the President's request by adding $2.8 billion for 
critical defense initiatives. Equally important, when supplemental 
funds are included, this bill provides the first consecutive year 
increase in defense spending since 1985. Despite these slight 
increases, we were forced to make many tough choices in this bill. 
Persistent underfunding of defense needs and an extraordinarily high 
operations tempo generated an unfunded request list from the services 
chiefs totalling some $7 billion.
  In this legislation we have the advantage of hindsight on Operation 
Allied Force, which exposed a number of urgent needs that are not 
addressed in the President's request. I am particularly pleased at what 
we were able to do for two platforms which I regard as enablers for the 
conduct of all military operations: tankers and jammers.
  H.R. 2561 provides $208 million for KC-135 reengining, allowing the 
Air National Guard to convert 8 aircraft with modern engines. The 
Kosovo operation showed clearly that we rely on KC-135 aerial refueling 
tankers for all air missions and both active and guard crews were hard 
pressed to support the campaign. These forty year old aircraft are the 
backbone of our global capabilities and new engines dramatically 
increase their capability, allowing a 25 percent increase in fuel 
offload capability, a 35 percent reduction in time to climb, a 23 
percent reduction in take off distance, while also meeting current 
noise and pollution standards. Yet, the Air Force has refused to commit 
seriously to reengining these aircraft which are the legs of the entire 
service. In previous years, the Defense Subcommittee has wisely added 
funds for one or two kits a year, but more than 130 aircraft remain to 
be reengined. Unfathomably, in a period of dramatically increased 
global deployments, the Air Force has delayed conversions until 2002. 
This legislation meets the need and puts the Air Force on an economical 
path to actually integrate modern engines onto an aging airframe for 
which there is no proposed alternative.
  The bill also addresses the tactical aircraft jammer crisis. To pay 
the growing bills on the F-22, the Air Force sacrificed its entire 
fleet of EF-111A tactical jamming aircraft, leaving the entire DOD with 
a single platform, the EA-6B Prowler, to perform this essential 
mission. These aircraft were heavily utilized over Kosovo, performing 
717 wartime sorties. But to meet the need, the Prowlers were stretched 
thin. Coverage of Korea was eliminated, safety standards were waived, 
spare parts were stripped from everywhere else in the world and 
squadrons on the East and West coasts were put on alert interfering 
with training. Two squadrons returning from 6 month carrier deployments 
were turned around and again deployed to Aviano, instead of seeing 
their families. In all, 12 of 19 squadrons were at-sea or deployed.

  The Kosovo operation showed that we simply do not have enough 
Prowlers to support our national strategy. The operation also revealed 
other deficiencies that must be corrected. EA-6Bs are not night-vision 
capable, which requires air crews to fly with external lights, 
illuminating them to adversaries. They have no data link capability and 
thus have difficulty discerning the location of friendly and enemy 
aircraft. And while DOD acknowledges that within 10 years we will face 
a severe inventory problem, there is no plan to address this issue. Our 
bill provides $227 million to fund a package of improvements to the 
fleet. We have included night vision equipment, simulators, a data link 
capability and funding for a follow-on replacement aircraft. As with 
the KC-135, this is a national capability that is readily recognized 
but unsupported by DOD because of limited modernization funds. The 
lessons of Kosovo demonstrate the importance of both platforms and I 
strongly support the Committee's actions on these two aircraft.
  The Committee has managed to address many such modernization 
shortfalls in this bill while also providing for quality of life 
initiatives. The bill fully funds the 4.8 percent pay raise and 
supports pay table and retirement reform. We have increased the Basic 
Allowance for Housing by $225 million. Our continued concern about 
pilot retention was reflected in a $300 million increase for aviation 
continuation pay. Retention is about more than pay however, and the 
report directs DOD to undertake a comprehensive quality of life study 
to provide a foundation for addressing other issues that have negative 
effects on unit morale and readiness.
  I believe this is an outstanding bill which addresses a wide range of 
critical, yet unfunded near-term priorities within the Department of 
Defense. It is essential that we act on the immediate lessons of Kosovo 
and by directing funding to such areas as tankers and jammers we have 
improved the overall capabilities of our forces. I urge Members to 
support this bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the proposed 
$266 billion for the Defense Appropriations for FY 2000. This bill 
appropriates $2.8 billion more than the administration's request. This 
includes hundreds of millions of dollars needed to build new F-15s and 
F-16s--both Cold War fossils--and $3.9 billion for a national missile 
defense system.
  What is the threat that we need such elaborate and expensive items to 
add to the U.S. defense? What is the threat that we are willing to 
forsake health care for our children, smaller classrooms for our 
children and prescription drug coverage for our seniors?
  Times are changing. The $3.9 billion that is to be spent on missile 
defense is an example of money invested in a non-existent threat. The 
proposed National Missile Defense (NMD) program would have been much 
more useful fifteen years ago, during the Cold War. Biological and 
chemical warfare is the foreseen

[[Page H6263]]

threat these days, and an NMD program will soon be obsolete. Defense 
spending should be decreasing, yet it is costing more and more each 
year to defend ourselves from an invisible enemy.
  The Pentagon is the largest source of bureaucratic waste, fraud and 
abuse in the federal government. Military contractors and their 
champions in Congress fuel wasteful military spending by promoting 
weapons as jobs programs and stuffing pork projects into districts and 
states. When in reality, the jobs gained in the U.S. pales in 
comparison to those sent overseas to complete the majority of weapons 
development. Congress should hold military projects to the same ``pork 
accountability standard'' as other government projects.
  The worst part of it all is that in order to fund these ridiculous 
increases, programs designed for community and regional development 
programs will suffer the most. Massive cuts in domestic programs will 
equal a massive loss in jobs for teachers, construction workers, civil 
service workers, and others. This money could also be directed to 
improve the quality of childcare for working families, improving 
Medicare, and increased funding for medical research.
  Remember to keep in mind the $13 billion wasted in Kosovo--a 
situation that could have been settled through peace talks and 
negotiations. Now, NATO wants our support to rebuild the bridges, 
roads, and towns that were destroyed.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this wasteful 
and misdirected use of $266 billion. Please oppose H.R. 2561, the 
Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
colleague's comments, and with that, for general debate purposes, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate having expired, pursuant to 
the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute 
rule. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may 
accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that 
he has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2561

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, for military functions 
     administered by the Department of Defense, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active 
     duty (except members of reserve components provided for 
     elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), to section 229(b) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)), and to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund; $21,475,732,000.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active 
     duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere), 
     midshipmen, and aviation cadets; and for payments pursuant to 
     section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 
     note), to section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 429(b)), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund; $16,737,072,000.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Marine Corps on 
     active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for 
     elsewhere); and for payments pursuant to section 156 of 
     Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), to 
     section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)), 
     and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund; 
     $6,353,622,000.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Air Force on 
     active duty (except members of reserve components provided 
     for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), to section 229(b) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)), and to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund; $17,565,811,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and for members of the Reserve Officers' 
     Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of 
     title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund; 
     $2,235,055,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Navy 
     Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     for members of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund; $1,425,210,000.

                    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Marine 
     Corps Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund; $403,822,000.

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and for members of the Air Reserve 
     Officers' Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 
     16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to 
     the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund; 
     $872,978,000.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     National Guard while on duty under section 10211, 10302, or 
     12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States 
     Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of 
     title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund; $3,486,427,000.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air 
     National Guard on duty under section 10211, 10305, or 12402 
     of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, 
     or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10 
     or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund; $1,456,248,000.

                                TITLE II

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance

[[Page H6264]]

     of the Army, as authorized by law; and not to exceed 
     $10,624,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary 
     expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the 
     Secretary of the Army, and payments may be made on his 
     certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes; 
     $19,629,019,000 and, in addition, $50,000,000 shall be 
     derived by transfer from the National Defense Stockpile 
     Transaction Fund: Provided, That of the funds made available 
     under this heading, $6,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be transferred to ``National Park Service--
     Construction'' within 30 days of enactment of this Act, only 
     for necessary infrastructure repair improvements at Fort 
     Baker, under the management of the Golden Gate Recreation 
     Area: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in 
     this paragraph, not less than $355,000,000 shall be made 
     available only for conventional ammunition care and 
     maintenance:
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, $4,000,000 shall not be available until thirty days 
     after the Secretary of the Army provides to the congressional 
     defense committees the results of an assessment, solicited by 
     means of a competitive bid, on the prospects of recovering 
     costs associated with the environmental restoration of the 
     Department of the Army's government-owned, contractor-
     operated facilities.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps, 
     as authorized by law; and not to exceed $5,155,000 can be 
     used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be 
     expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the 
     Navy, and payments may be made on his certificate of 
     necessity for confidential military purposes; $23,029,584,000 
     and, in addition, $50,000,000 shall be derived by transfer 
     from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized 
     by law; $2,822,004,000.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by 
     law; and not to exceed $7,882,000 can be used for emergencies 
     and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payments may 
     be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes; $21,641,099,000 and, in addition, 
     $50,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the National 
     Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the 
     Department of Defense (other than the military departments), 
     as authorized by law; $11,401,733,000, of which not to exceed 
     $2,000,000 is for providing the Computer/Electronic 
     Accommodations program to federal agencies which otherwise do 
     not receive funding for such purposes; of which not to exceed 
     $25,000,000 may be available for the CINC initiative fund 
     account; and of which not to exceed $32,300,000 can be used 
     for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on 
     the approval or authority of the Secretary of Defense, and 
     payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for 
     confidential military purposes: Provided, That of the amount 
     appropriated under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'' in division B, title I, of Public Law 105-277, 
     the amount of $177,000,000 not covered as of July 12, 1999, 
     by an official budget request under the fifth proviso of that 
     section is available, subject to such an official budget 
     request for that entire amount, only for the following 
     accounts in the specified amounts:
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force'', $47,000,000;
       ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', $100,000,000; and
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'', 
     $30,000,000:
     Provided further, That none of the amount of $177,000,000 
     described in the preceding proviso may be made available for 
     obligation unless the entire amount is released to the 
     Department of Defense and made available for obligation for 
     the programs, and in the amounts, specified in the preceding 
     proviso: Provided further, That of the amounts provided under 
     this heading, $40,000,000 to remain available until expended, 
     is available only for expenses relating to certain classified 
     activities, and may be transferred as necessary by the 
     Secretary of Defense to operation and maintenance, 
     procurement, and research, development, test and evaluation 
     appropriations accounts, to be merged with and to be 
     available for the same time period as the appropriations to 
     which transferred: Provided further, That the transfer 
     authority provided under this heading is in addition to any 
     other transfer authority provided in this Act: Provided 
     further, That of the funds made available under this heading, 
     $10,000,000 shall be available only for retrofitting security 
     containers that are under the control of, or that are 
     accessible by, defense contractors.

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications; 
     $1,513,076,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications; 
     $969,478,000.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications; $143,911,000.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications; $1,788,091,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the 
     Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment 
     and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, 
     operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National 
     Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as 
     authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army 
     National Guard division, regimental, and battalion commanders 
     while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard 
     Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau; supplying and equipping the Army 
     National Guard as authorized by law; and expenses of repair, 
     modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies and 
     equipment (including aircraft); $3,103,642,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For operation and maintenance of the Air National Guard, 
     including medical and hospital treatment and related expenses 
     in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, operation, repair, and 
     other necessary expenses of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air National Guard, including repair of 
     facilities, maintenance, operation, and modification of 
     aircraft; transportation of things, hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; supplies, materials, and equipment, as authorized 
     by law for the Air National Guard; and expenses incident to 
     the maintenance and use of supplies, materials, and 
     equipment, including such as may be furnished from stocks 
     under the control of agencies of the Department of Defense; 
     travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same basis as 
     authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel on active 
     Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders while 
     inspecting units in compliance with National Guard Bureau 
     regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau; $3,239,438,000.

             Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses directly relating to Overseas Contingency 
     Operations by United States military forces; $1,812,600,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may transfer these funds only to 
     operation and maintenance accounts within this title, the 
     Defense Health Program appropriation, and to working capital 
     funds: Provided further, That the funds transferred shall be 
     merged with and shall be available for the same purposes and 
     for the same time period, as the appropriation to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in 
     this paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     contained elsewhere in this Act.

          United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

       For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; $7,621,000, of which 
     not to exceed $2,500 can be used for official representation 
     purposes.

                    Environmental Restoration, Army


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $378,170,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the

[[Page H6265]]

     Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required for 
     environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Army, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in 
     this paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.

                    Environmental Restoration, Navy


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Navy, $284,000,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Navy shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Navy, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Navy, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in 
     this paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.

                  Environmental Restoration, Air Force


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Air Force, $376,800,000, to 
     remain available until transferred: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall, upon determining that such 
     funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction 
     and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings 
     and debris of the Department of the Air Force, or for similar 
     purposes, transfer the funds made available by this 
     appropriation to other appropriations made available to the 
     Department of the Air Force, to be merged with and to be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same time period 
     as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That upon a determination that all or part of the funds 
     transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the 
     purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred 
     back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the 
     transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in addition 
     to any other transfer authority provided elsewhere in this 
     Act.

                Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of Defense, $25,370,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of Defense, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of Defense, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in 
     this paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.

         Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $209,214,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris at 
     sites formerly used by the Department of Defense, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in 
     this paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.

             Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

       For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense 
     (consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402, 
     404, 2547, and 2551 of title 10, United States Code); 
     $55,800,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001.

                  Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction

       For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union, 
     including assistance provided by contract or by grants, for 
     facilitating the elimination and the safe and secure 
     transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical, and other 
     weapons; for establishing programs to prevent the 
     proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-
     related technology and expertise; for programs relating to 
     the training and support of defense and military personnel 
     for demilitarization and protection of weapons, weapons 
     components, and weapons technology and expertise; 
     $456,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002.

                 Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, resulting from 
     unfunded shortfalls in the repair and maintenance of real 
     property of the Department of Defense (including military 
     housing and barracks); $800,000,000, for the maintenance of 
     real property of the Department of Defense (including minor 
     construction and major maintenance and repair), which shall 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 2001, as 
     follows:
       Army, $182,600,000;
       Navy, $285,200,000;
       Marine Corps, $62,100,000;
       Air Force, $259,600,000; and
       Defense-Wide, $10,500,000:
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading for Defense-Wide 
     activities, the entire amount shall only be available for 
     grants by the Secretary of Defense to local educational 
     authorities which maintain primary and secondary educational 
     facilities located within Department of Defense 
     installations, and which are used primarily by Department of 
     Defense military and civilian dependents, for facility 
     repairs and improvements to such educational facilities: 
     Provided further, That such grants to local educational 
     authorities may be made for repairs and improvements to such 
     educational facilities as required to meet classroom size 
     requirements: Provided further, That the cumulative amount of 
     any grant or grants to any single local educational authority 
     provided pursuant to the provisions under this heading shall 
     not exceed $1,500,000.

                               TITLE III

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $1,590,488,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                       Missile Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $1,272,798,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including 
     ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes; $1,556,665,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2002.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and

[[Page H6266]]

     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $1,228,770,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked 
     combat vehicles; the purchase of not to exceed 36 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; and the purchase of 3 
     vehicles required for physical security of personnel, 
     notwithstanding price limitations applicable to passenger 
     vehicles but not to exceed $200,000 per vehicle; 
     communications and electronic equipment; other support 
     equipment; spare parts, ordnance, and accessories therefor; 
     specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of 
     public and private plants, including the land necessary 
     therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and 
     procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and 
     Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other 
     expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $3,604,751,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may 
     be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; $9,168,405,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2002.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and 
     related support equipment including spare parts, and 
     accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants, 
     including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and 
     procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and 
     Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; 
     $1,334,800,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $537,600,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

       For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, 
     or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including 
     armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools and installation thereof in public and private 
     plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned 
     equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long leadtime 
     components and designs for vessels to be constructed or 
     converted in the future; and expansion of public and private 
     plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, as follows:
       NSSN (AP), $748,497,000;
       CVN-77 (AP), $751,540,000;
       CVN Refuelings (AP), $323,665,000;
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $2,681,653,000;
       LPD-17 amphibious transport dock ship, $1,508,338,000;
       ADC(X), $439,966,000;
       LCAC landing craft air cushion program, $31,776,000; and
       For craft, outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and 
     first destination transportation, $171,119,000;
     In all: $6,656,554,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2004: Provided, That additional 
     obligations may be incurred after September 30, 2004, for 
     engineering services, tests, evaluations, and other such 
     budgeted work that must be performed in the final stage of 
     ship construction: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided under this heading for the construction or 
     conversion of any naval vessel to be constructed in shipyards 
     in the United States shall be expended in foreign facilities 
     for the construction of major components of such vessel: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this 
     heading shall be used for the construction of any naval 
     vessel in foreign shipyards.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For procurement, production, and modernization of support 
     equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy 
     ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and 
     ships authorized for conversion); the purchase of not to 
     exceed 25 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; 
     lease of passenger motor vehicles; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; 
     $4,252,191,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture, 
     and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment, 
     appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in 
     public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine 
     Corps, including the purchase of not to exceed 43 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; and expansion of public 
     and private plants, including land necessary therefor, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     $1,333,120,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of aircraft 
     and equipment, including armor and armament, specialized 
     ground handling equipment, and training devices, spare parts, 
     and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; expansion of 
     public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things; 
     $8,298,313,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of 
     missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment, 
     including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground 
     handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public 
     and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things; 
     $2,329,510,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes; 
     $481,837,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2002.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For procurement and modification of equipment (including 
     ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground 
     electronic and communication equipment), and supplies, 
     materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided 
     for; the purchase of not to exceed 53 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only; lease of passenger motor 
     vehicles; and expansion of public and private plants, 
     Government-owned equipment and installation thereof in such 
     plants, erection of structures, and acquisition of land, for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon, prior 
     to approval of title; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; $6,964,227,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2002.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments) necessary 
     for procurement, production, and modification of equipment, 
     supplies, materials, and spare parts

[[Page H6267]]

     therefor, not otherwise provided for; the purchase of not to 
     exceed 103 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; the 
     purchase of 7 vehicles required for physical security of 
     personnel, notwithstanding price limitations applicable to 
     passenger vehicles but not to exceed $250,000 per vehicle; 
     expansion of public and private plants, equipment, and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; $2,286,368,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2002: Provided, That of the funds 
     available under this heading, not less than $39,491,000, 
     including $6,000,000 derived by transfer from ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', shall be 
     available only to support Electronic Commerce Resource 
     Centers: Provided further, That none of the funds in this or 
     any other Act shall be used to compensate administrative 
     support contractors for the Joint Electronic Commerce Program 
     Office.

                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment

       For procurement of aircraft, missiles, tracked combat 
     vehicles, ammunition, other weapons, and other procurement 
     for the reserve components of the Armed Forces; $130,000,000, 
     to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2002: 
     Provided, That the Chiefs of the Reserve and National Guard 
     components shall, not later than 30 days after the enactment 
     of this Act, individually submit to the congressional defense 
     committees the modernization priority assessment for their 
     respective Reserve or National Guard component.

                    Defense Production Act Purchases

       For activities by the Department of Defense pursuant to 
     sections 108, 301, 302, and 303 of the Defense Production Act 
     of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2078, 2091, 2092, 2093); $5,000,000 
     only for microwave power tubes and to remain available until 
     expended.

                                TITLE IV

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment; $5,148,093,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2001.

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment; $9,080,580,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2001: Provided, That funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph which are available for the V-
     22 may be used to meet unique requirements of the Special 
     Operation Forces: Provided further, That of the funds 
     available under this heading, no more than $5,000,000 shall 
     be available only to initiate a cost improvement program for 
     the Intercooled Recuperated Gas Turbine Engine program: 
     Provided further, That the funds identified in the 
     immediately preceding proviso shall be made available only if 
     the Secretary of the Navy certifies to the congressional 
     defense committees that binding commitments to finance the 
     remaining cost of the ICR cost improvement program have been 
     secured from non-federal sources: Provided further, That 
     should the Secretary of the Navy fail to make the 
     certification required in the immediately preceding proviso 
     by July 31, 2000, the Secretary shall make the funds subject 
     to such certification available for DD-21 ship propulsion 
     risk reduction: Provided further, That the Department of 
     Defense shall not pay more than one-third of the cost of the 
     Intercooled Recuperated Gas Turbine Engine cost improvement 
     program.

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment; $13,709,233,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2001.

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary 
     for basic and applied scientific research, development, test 
     and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be 
     designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense, 
     pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and 
     operation of facilities and equipment; $8,930,149,000, to 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 2001: 
     Provided, That not less than $419,768,000 of the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be made available only for 
     the Navy Theater Wide Missile Defense program: Provided 
     further, That of the amount appropriated in section 102 of 
     division B, title I, of Public Law 105-277 (112 Stat. 2681-
     558), the amount of $230,000,000 not covered as of July 12, 
     1999, by an official budget request under the third proviso 
     of that section is available, subject to such an official 
     budget request for that entire amount, only for the following 
     programs in the specified amounts:
       ``International Cooperative Programs'' (ARROW anti-tactical 
     ballistic missile), $45,000,000;
       ``Navy Theater Wide Missile Defense System'', $35,000,000;
       ``PATRIOT PAC-3 Theater Missile Defense Acquisition--EMD'', 
     $75,000,000; and
       ``National Missile Defense Dem/Val'', $75,000,000:
     Provided further, That none of the amount of $230,000,000 
     described in the preceding proviso may be made available for 
     obligation unless the entire amount is released to the 
     Department of Defense and made available for obligation for 
     the programs, and in the amounts, specified in the preceding 
     proviso.

               Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, of independent 
     activities of the Director, Test and Evaluation in the 
     direction and supervision of developmental test and 
     evaluation, including performance and joint developmental 
     testing and evaluation; and administrative expenses in 
     connection therewith; $271,957,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2001.

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and 
     Evaluation in the direction and supervision of operational 
     test and evaluation, including initial operational test and 
     evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of, 
     production decisions; joint operational testing and 
     evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection 
     therewith; $29,434,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2001.

  Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the bill, through page 38, line 5, be considered 
as having been read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?


             Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. BARR of Georgia

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia:

                               H.R. 2561

       In the paragraph in title IV under the heading ``Research 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force'', insert after 
     the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by $1) (reduced 
     by $1)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis) each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson) and further, that the said gentleman from Connecticut be 
allowed to control 15 minutes of time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss with the chairman of the subcommittee 
the importance of the F-22 program and the actions of his subcommittee 
in this year's defense appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding the committee has acknowledged 
that the F-22 was developed to guarantee air superiority over any 
potential adversary for the foreseeable future. In addition, the 
committee has also stated that, as currently configured, there is 
little doubt that the F-22, if it meets its performance specifications, 
would far outclass any single fighter known to be under development.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, 
the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. However, the committee has decided in this 
legislation that a production pause should take place on the production 
of the first 6 planes because of certain concerns outlined in the 
committee report.

[[Page H6268]]

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is again 
correct.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California and 
I and others have had numerous conversations concerning the importance 
of this program of air superiority of the United States. It is my 
understanding the chairman of the subcommittee, as well as members of 
the upcoming conference committee, will closely look at the F-22 
program in light of the fact the other body, that is the Senate, 
included full funding for this project in its appropriations bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the 
gentleman that because of his hard work and the work of his colleagues, 
it is not our intention to go any further at this time than a pause 
relative to the F-22 program, and we do intend to look very closely at 
the program as we go forward to conference with the Senate.
  I would emphasize to the gentleman from Georgia that the $1.2 billion 
in research and development for the F-22 remains in the bill, and it is 
our intention to see that that R&D will go forward.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to 
discuss with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the 
Committee on Appropriations the C-130J program. The United States 
Transportation Command states a need for 150 C-130J tactical airlift 
aircraft to modernize our forces and replace aging C-130Js currently 
being deployed by our active and reserve force and our Guard units.
  However, the administration budget failed to request any C-130Js 
until fiscal year 2002, and active duty units are not scheduled to 
receive any until fiscal year 2006. However, over the last several 
months, I have worked with my colleagues of the Georgia Delegation and 
other Members of the House to point out the need to begin to authorize 
and appropriate these planes in this year's budget.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the Members 
of the House, I would like my colleagues to know that the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and I have worked very, very closely on this 
question. The gentleman took the time to bring professional people 
along with him to my office.
  We spent considerable time discussing the program that involves the 
C-130J, particularly the facility that operates in Marietta, Georgia. 
That exchange caused our subcommittee to look very closely at that 
recommendation, a recommendation that had not come originally from the 
Air Force itself. It is with his leadership that the C-130J is a part 
of this package, and I very much appreciate the Member's contribution 
in that regard.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman 
of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of the amendment. I am here to address what is a 
very serious issue of national security raised by cutting the F-22 and 
the virtual elimination of the number one priority of the United States 
Air Force.
  Let me first acknowledge and thank the leadership of the Committee on 
Armed Services and the fine job that the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) have done. I 
commend them for their mark on the F-22. I am proud to be a member of 
this committee.
  The issue of cost associated with this program is one the committee 
addressed and requires the Secretary of the Air Force to report their 
continuing efforts to meet mandated spending caps. I am heartened as 
well by the actions of the Senate Committee on National Security, the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, the Defense Department, and the 
Clinton administration, all who support the F-22 for the strategic 
importance, air superiority, and dominance it supplies our troops who 
most recently demonstrated their brave actions and won the war for us 
in Kosovo.
  Let me also acknowledge the great respect that I have for the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), our chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and other members of the Subcommittee on Defense 
who have felt this program was too costly to continue because of 
budgetary constraints and cost overruns.
  I rise this afternoon without malice and ask these fine appropriators 
who are headed to conference to hear the concerns not only of 
legislators, but from the guys in the front lines, the men and women 
who put their lives on the line, the ones who we ask to fly in harm's 
way. Their first concern is the Nation they protect and the comrades 
they fly with. They know little of politics, of budget caps, and 
conference committees. They only know they have a job to perform.
  They are given orders, and they execute, and in Kosovo, that was over 
30,000 sorties without a single life lost. They are the heroes. They 
are this Nation's Jedi warriors. And in gratitude to their service, we 
are preparing today to cut the only program that guarantees their air 
dominance. While trying to persuade them that retrofitting the F-15 is 
the answer for the future.
  I visited several of these pilots at Langley Air Force base. I told 
them how proud I and all of the Members of Congress were of their 
effort. They asked them why we are cutting the F-22 and stressed their 
dismay at how counterproductive it is to try to bolt on technology to 
the F-15. To quote Major Jay Tim, we would get only one-third the 
capability of the F-22 at 90 percent of the cost it will take to 
retrofit the F-15.
  Another young warrior said, rather painfully, how many of us coming 
home in coffins will it take for Congress to understand how important 
tactical superiority and advanced avionics are to the pilots who carry 
out these missions.

                              {time}  1545

  Their classified presentations were even more vivid, and it seems 
incomprehensible to them and frankly, to me, that knowing our enemy's 
capability we will place our troops in harm's way of enemy-constructed 
death zones of the 21st Century with 20th Century technology.
  We talked all year long about morale and retention. Our pilots are 
the best trained fighters in the world, and they would fly anything 
into battle for their country, now to come home only to find cuts in 
their top priority in Congress, turning congressional commitment into a 
hollow promise for them.
  For them, this is not some frill. This is not some back bench item. 
This is their very future.
  Our great leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), has 
eloquently referred to issues that impact everyday people as kitchen 
table issues. Across kitchen tables of our Air Force pilots, spouses 
wonder why, with our surplus, why given their outstanding valor, we 
place their husbands and wives at risk.
  Across the kitchen tables in my own hometown, for the people who work 
at Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, who wonder why, with the largest defense 
budget in recent memory, why they will be laid off after competing for 
and winning an engine contract that the Air Force assured them would be 
built, why is the House cutting what the Air Force assured would be 
their top priority.
  In so many ways, Mr. Chairman, this is a great defense budget, and it 
has done much for our troops and it has done much more the defense of 
this Nation.
  Members are going to bring home much to their districts, but for me 
over the break I will be sitting down across kitchen tables, on shop 
floors, in living rooms, trying to explain to people I grew up with, my 
neighbors, that their fate lies in the hands of a conference committee. 
It is my sincere hope that this end story will be one we can be proud 
of, but I cannot, in good conscience, vote for this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to address a very serious issue of national 
security raised by the cutting of the F-22 and virtual elimination of 
the number one priority of the U.S. Air Force.
  Let me first acknowledge and thank the leadership of the Armed 
Services Committee and the fine job that Mr. Spence and Mr. Skelton 
have done and I commend them for the mark on the F-22. The issue of 
cost associated with the program is one the committee

[[Page H6269]]

addressed and requires the Secretary of the Air Force to report on 
their continuing efforts to meet the mandated spending caps.
  I'm heartened as well by the actions of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, the Senate Appropriation Committee, the Defense Department, 
and the Clinton Administration, all who support the F-22 for the 
strategic importance, air superiority, and dominance it provides our 
troops. Most recently demonstrated by those brave Air Force warriors 
who won the war in Kosovo.
  Let me also acknowledge the great respect I have for Jack Murtha, 
Jerry Lewis, Norm Dicks, Duke Cunningham and others on Appropriations, 
Subcommittee on Defense who have felt the program is too costly to 
continue given our budgetary constraints and cost overruns in the 
project. I rise without malice, and ask these fine appropriators who 
are headed to conference hear the concerns not only of legislators, but 
from the guys in the front lines, the men and women who put their lives 
on the line, the ones we ask to fly in harm's way.
  Their first concern is the nation they protect, and the comrades they 
fly with. They know little of politics, budget caps, and conference 
committees. They only know they have a job to perform, they are given 
orders, and they execute. In Kosovo that was over 30,000 sorties, 
without a single life lost. They are the heroes, they are the nation's 
Jedi warriors. In gratitude for their service, we are preparing today 
to cut the only program that guarantees them air dominance, while 
trying to persuade them that retrofitting F-15 is the answer for the 
future.
  I visited several of these pilots at Langley Air Force Base, I told 
them how proud I was of their effort. They asked me why we are cutting 
the F-22 and stressed their dismay at how counter productive it is to 
try to bolt on technology to the F-15. To quote Major Jake Timm, ``We 
would get only \1/3\ the capability of the F-22 at 90% of the cost--it 
will cost $41 billion to retrofit the F-15 and $40 billion to go 
forward with the F-22.'' Or as another young warrior said, ``How many 
of us coming home in coffins will it take for Congress to understand 
how important tactical superiority and advanced avionics are to the 
pilots who carry out these missions.'' Their classified presentations 
were even more vivid, and it seems incomprehensible to them and frankly 
to me, that knowing our enemies capability, we would place troops in 
harms way of enemy constructed death zones of the 21st Century with 
20th Century technology. We have talked all year long about morale and 
retention, our pilots are the best trained fighters in the world and 
would fly anything into battle for their country, now to come home only 
to find cuts in their top priority fighter, turning Congressional 
commitment into a hollow promise. For them, this is not some frill or 
back bench item. This is their future. Our great leader Dick Gephardt 
has eloquently referred to issues that impact every day people as 
kitchen table issues, across the kitchen tables of our Air Force 
pilots' spouses wonder why with our surplus, why given their 
outstanding valor, would we place their husbands and wives at risk. And 
across the kitchen tables in my home town, people who work at Pratt & 
Whitney wonder why with the largest defense budget in recent memory. 
Why they will be laid off, why the engine they competed for and won, 
will not be built. Why the House is cutting what the Air Force assured 
them was their top priority.

  In so many ways the defense bill has done much for our troops and for 
the defense of the nation and Members will bring home much to their 
Districts. But for me over the break, I'll be sitting down across 
kitchen tables, on shop floors, and living rooms trying to explain to 
the people I grew up with, that their fate lies in the hands of a 
conference committee. It is my sincere hope that the end story is one 
we can be proud of. But I cannot in good conscience vote for this bill.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am appalled at this 
discussion.
  I think so much of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). I know they are patriots of 
the first degree. We are all interested in the best for this Nation. 
For 50 years, every American soldier has gone to war confident that the 
United States had air superiority. Cancelling the F-22, and that is 
what this is, means we cannot guarantee air supremacy in future 
conflict, supremacy over the battlefield, and any new aircraft needs 
it. Without the F-22, I do not think the joint strike fighter will be 
able to carry out its primary mission, and the Air Force backs that, 
and they say that it will cost just as much to retrofit that airplane 
as to buy an aircraft that is already there.
  Our Nation's joint forces must be free from attack, free to maneuver, 
and free to attack on the battlefield whenever. That is what this 
airplane does. It has already been delayed 9 years. We need it now, as 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) pointed out earlier, and 
we should have had it now. There is no alternative to the F-22. The 
joint strike fighter was not designed for air superiority and 
redesigning it will dramatically increase the cost.
  We have already done away with some of our electronic warfare defense 
in the Air Force. We will have to regenerate that.
  They are planning to do away with the F-117 because the F-22 is a 
stealth fighter. They are going to have to keep that around. That is 
going to cost more. An upgraded F-15 does not provide the same 
dominance that the F-22 program would provide. The Secretary of Defense 
vehemently disagrees with the decision to defund the F-22, and he 
stated he cannot accept a defense bill that kills this cornerstone 
program.
  The cancellation of the F-22 will adversely affect over 151,000 jobs 
in the coming years. Billions of dollars in contracts will be canceled. 
It affects 42 States.
  I flew the F-15 when I was active in the Air Force. That has been 
over 25 years ago. Can my colleagues believe that we are trying to 
retrofit an F-15 that will be in service for over 33 years by the time 
the F-22 achieves initial operational capability? And if a 33-year-old 
aircraft had been used in Korea, we would have been fighting migs with 
Sopwith Camel bi-planes. If the 33-year-old aircraft had been used just 
in the Gulf War, we would have been fighting third-generation Soviet 
fighters with Vietnam era F-4s.
  Do we think our active fighters would have fled from that threat? I 
do not think so.
  The American people will not tolerate parity or an aerial war of 
attrition. Parity is not acceptable. Our Air Force must have the 
capability to dominate the sky. Let us build this airplane. It is a 
stroke for freedom.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of continued funding for the U.S. Air 
Force's F-22 advanced tactical program. The House passed H.R. 1401, the 
fiscal year 2000 defense authorization bill, on June 10 and fully 
supported the F-22 program. In fact, the program was fully funded by 
both the defense authorization and appropriation bills acted on by the 
Senate.
  I believe the F-22 program is critical to our country's defense. If 
the decision to cut funding is enacted, we lose the cornerstone of our 
Nation's global air strategy for the next century. Budget cuts are 
tough today. We must choose how we spend our resources and act 
prudently. It is an opportunity cost. We cannot have everything. We 
must choose wisely to spend our resources, but we should not do that 
unilaterally.
  What happened to the people who deal in committee and try to 
understand these programs? That decision-making process has been taken 
away from us.
  What do we lose when we give up the F-22 program? Well, let me say 
the proposed cuts jeopardize our next century's warfighting capability. 
It places our forces at higher risk. The F-22 is the first stealthy 
fighter attack aircraft that permits our pilots to destroy enemy 
aircraft and ground-based air defenses at greater stand-off ranges than 
the current F-15 fighter. An upgraded F-15 does not have that 
technology. We must have the F-22 for the next century.
  There are at least five foreign fighters already starting to eclipse 
the F-15 and many of these planes are on the international market. Let 
us work together. Let us look back at this.
  The F-22's attributes of stealth, supercruise and integrated avionics 
are essential for enabling air dominance to counter advanced SAMs, 
emerging threat aircraft, and advanced air-to-air missiles.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield what time he may 
consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

[[Page H6270]]

  (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the F-22 
program.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern about the 
potential decision to eliminate funding for production of the F-22 
Raptor.
  Our Department of Defense has consistently expressed a need for the 
development of the F-22 for many years. Indeed, Secretary Cohen has 
called the F-22 program ``the cornerstone of our nation's global air 
power in the 21st century.''
  I agree that the F-22 program has faced unusual development 
challenges due to its many advances in aviation technology. I also 
recognize the need for the Armed Services Committee and this Congress 
to engage in continuing and intensive oversight of the program.
  Yet it is premature to close the production line and effectively end 
the F-22 program at this time. Congress should allow the Air Force 
sufficient time and aircraft for the intensive flight-testing and 
evaluation needed to assess the F-22's value. Only then can the 
Congress make an informed decision on the future of such an important 
component of our national security plans.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). 
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the authors of this 
amendment I want to congratulate in the most professional way, and I 
think it is a good debate. Saying the F-15 does not have the same 
capability as the F-22, no one disputes that. That is like saying that 
when I was flying the F-4 phantom it was as good as the F-14 that we 
were building, but I would not want to put so much money in the F-14 
that it kept me from surviving in the combat that I was flying in 
today.
  The question is, I would not want to fly the F-22. I think it is 
going to combat the SU-35 and the SU-37 out, but I have talked to the 
F-15 drivers. I have also flown the F-15 and the F-16 and the Phantom 
and some of these assets. Our F-15 drivers are saying, ``Go Duke.''
  My colleagues say that these bolt-on equipment that they are 
spending, the Air Force is already investing in the A9X and the helmet 
site and the radar that will keep up with the jammer, but they are 
doing it at this level because the funding is not there.
  What I would recommend is that General Ryan goes to the President and 
says, Mr. President, is this really an emergency? I talked to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) about it. We have all of these 
unfunded requirements. Now, these unfunded requirements mean life and 
death.
  I have a program here that is costing $200 million an airplane; and 
what I need is the emergency supplemental, maybe for Kosovo, to add 
money; but at the same time, if there is an airplane that costs $200 
million here and only 5 percent of it has been tested and the cost 
traditionally has gone to here, can any of my colleagues justify paying 
$250 million or $300 million for one airplane? I cannot.
  I need Lockheed to come down on the price, and I need the extra 
funding to fund these things so that the kids that are flying today, I 
agree, I hated politicians when I was flying. I thought they only got 
us killed, and I am dead serious. They do not care about politicians. 
They want to survive, and that is what I am trying to do, is make sure 
that these F-14, F-15, F-18 drivers that are going to have to fly in 
this 10-year span until the F-22 comes on the line in full procurement, 
that they live; that they have a chance against those assets.
  I have told the people, I have a plant that may close down in my own 
district if the F-22 does not close. If it comes between jobs in my 
district and the security of this country, I will choose security 100 
percent of the time, and the lives of these kids.
  This is not political for us. It is something that we believe 
desperately in. Yes, this is high stakes poker, and I think that costs 
in expensive aircraft and equipment, we need to hold industry's toe to 
the line so that our kids will be safe and we need the additional funds 
that we do not have in the defense budget.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's top guns are being put into 
jeopardy. Like great balls of fire, the F-22, men and women who fly 
them, have responded courageously, faithfully, and successfully in an 
instant's notice around our globe. They have protected U.S. interests 
and U.S. citizens, and they have done so with precision and accuracy 
that no other plane or pilot has ever been capable of doing.
  Without the F-22 air power, our air power is greatly diminished. Any 
arguments against funding the F-22 just do not hold water. An F-15 
upgraded would still lack F-22 capabilities and cost essentially the 
same, and the joint strike fighter was not designed for the missions 
carried out by the F-22 and costs dramatically more to redesign.
  All of these combat-ready aircraft complement each other and are 
needed. Some want to question the costs and they want to question the 
cost of the F-22 program that senior Air Force officials say is the 
best managed program in the Department of Defense today. Some want to 
close the books on a program for 15 years of effort and $16 billion in 
investment has already been spent on the F-22. What a waste it would be 
to shut down the F-22 program.

                              {time}  1600

  Some want to stop the F-22 program even though a firm fixed price on 
the first eight aircraft has been established. Contractors cannot 
change the price tag, so this means no risk to the taxpayers.
  This program means, and this is close to my heart, $60 million over 
the life of the program in my district. We have lost 3,000 jobs in my 
district because of NAFTA. Now we stand a chance of losing more jobs. I 
think any way one breaks it down, it is a good important program. The 
F-22 should be funded.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  (Mr. ISAKSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Barr) for the opportunity to share in this 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge at the outset of my remarks how 
much I have appreciated the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) in the past 10 days. They have allowed me the 
opportunity to express my opinion, and they have done so sincerely and 
not just as a token and a pat on the head.
  I want to take the remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham), and I want to share it precisely with him for a second. He 
said he may lose a plant in his district. But if he, rather, had the 
choice between jobs in his district and the United States security, he 
would always choose security.
  Although this plant is not in my district, it is in the district of 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), many of its employees are. The 
gentleman from Georgia and I share this thing close. So it is natural 
for me as a Congressman of the Sixth District to argue for jobs in my 
district. But I am here to argue for the security of America.
  I just give my colleagues a couple of points. In the 21st Century, 
tactical theater attacks like we have had in Iraq, like we have had in 
the Balkans, will be the prototype. Our ability to knock out radar 
early, surface-to-air-missiles early, anti-aircraft early is what 
allows the rest of the United States military to act precisely without 
the loss of American lives or ground troops.
  The 15, the 14, the 15X will not have stealthy capability equal to 
the 22. They will not have capacity equal to the F-22. America will be 
sacrificing if it turns its back and pauses, if I give my colleagues 
the word ``pause,'' or kills, which could be in fact the correct word, 
the F-22, then we are placing the security of our country at a higher 
risk than it would be if we fully funded the F-22.
  So while I thank the chairman, the subcommittee chairman, and the 
ranking member for the courtesy they have shown me, and I mean that, I 
hope that, during the weeks ahead as we go to conference, they, too, 
will think of the security of the United States of America because we 
must always put it

[[Page H6271]]

above even a job in our own district. I rise for precisely that reason 
today.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Defense 
Appropriations bill overall, which includes a number of very vital 
items, including a 4.8 percent pay raise for military personnel, 
additional funds to enhance troop recruitment and retention, 36 Black 
Hawks which are the premier helicopter in the sky today.
  The bill also includes over $180 million for breast cancer, ovarian 
cancer, research, and prostate cancer. Items that are so critically 
important to the future of this Nation.
  But let me express my concern today, as my colleagues have, about the 
$1.8 billion cut for six F-22s, which are vital to long-term U.S. 
national security. The Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen, seven former 
Secretaries of Defense have stated that, if we cancel the F-22, we 
cannot guarantee air superiority in future conflicts.
  The F-22 was the world's first stealth air superiority fighter. 
Replacing the F-15 is critical to maintaining our defense superiority 
in the next century. Its stealth technology, speed, and ability to 
counter advanced surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles is unsurpassed.
  The F-22 engine is easier to fix than any other fighter's engine. The 
engine allows the aircraft to fly farther and faster on less fuel.
  Our first priority must always be the long-term safety and the 
security of American families. With the F-22, our Air Force will be 
able to protect America from the threats to our national security in 
the next century.
  I urge my colleagues to address this critical issue in the conference 
in the weeks ahead.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey).
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I support the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased today to stand in support of the Fiscal 
Year 2000 Defense Appropriations bill. The subcommittee and the full 
committee worked long and hard to build the best mix between current 
readiness needs and future capability requirements, no small task in 
the face of recent force reductions and increased operational tempo. 
For that effort I would like to congratulate Chairman Lewis, for his 
leadership; Mr. Murtha, for his bipartisan efforts; and Mr. Young, who 
as chairman of the full committee and former chairman of this 
subcommittee, provided helpful guidance.
  I do not need to add to the long list of anecdotes, Mr. Chairman, 
about our serious readiness shortfall. We have no need to remind 
Members of the aircraft that sit idle awaiting replacement parts, of 
the combat ships that head out understaffed, or even of the serious 
recruiting shortfalls that foretell of future readiness problems. These 
examples are all a matter of public record, even if they are not 
currently a matter of public awareness.
  So the subcommittee comes to the floor today with what we think is 
the best solution available to solve these problems. The bill reported 
by the full committee provides a total of $266.1 billion for the next 
fiscal year, which meets both the budget caps and the funding levels 
set in the 302(b) allocation. This represents a $15.5 billion increase 
over the previous fiscal year, and a $2.8 billion increase over the 
President's budget request.
  Highlights include a pay increase of nearly five percent for our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, $225 million for basic housing 
allowances so that military families can share part of the American 
Dream, $163.6 million to make up for training shortfalls, and $50 
million for domestic defense against weapons of mass destruction. The 
subcommittee has also recommended the procurement of important 
readiness items to combat immediate threats to global security, and the 
continuation of vital R&D, an area that the President continues to 
under fund.
  Now much has been made of our decision to reallocate the procurement 
dollars requested for the F-22 raptor to other, more pressing, 
readiness needs. For years we have told the Pentagon that they could 
not support all of their needs with the money they requested. For years 
we told them that procurement, research and development, and readiness 
will suffer. Despite the minimalist requests, we continued to add 
billions to the budget, all the while under constant fire for ``porking 
up the defense budget.''
  This year, we have continued to increase the defense bill by $2.8 
billion over the President's request. These increases include pay 
raises to get military families off of welfare, new EA-6B radar jamming 
aircraft so that missiles cannot track our pilots, and $500 million to 
clear the backlog of base maintenance requests. At the same time, we 
asked Department of Defense to get serious about their fiscal 
management and force modernization plans. I am particularly interested 
in learning why the Department will request six planes that are only 
five percent flight tested, and no new KC-130's to replace units that 
could fall out of the sky tomorrow.
  With an eye on recent conflicts, we must consider the course for 
American Military Might in the twenty-first century, and whether that 
course will steer us toward the vigilante peace that we so desperately 
desire. I believe that a healthy debate will lead us to determine 
whether the F-22 is a viable part of our military future, or whether we 
should focus our efforts elsewhere. Paramount to any decision will be 
our ability to respond to current and future conflicts and decisive and 
overwhelming force.
  At the turn of the century, on the edge of a new millennium, we face 
a complex world and a muddied global security picture. The cold war is 
over, but we find ourselves increasingly engaged in regional conflicts 
with global implications. I urge Members to support his bill as a 
responsible preparation to continue our efforts to expand democracy, 
and as an opportunity to address current readiness and force 
modernization problems.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding and giving me this moment to speak.
  Let me first compliment and congratulate this committee and this 
subcommittee on this defense bill.
  I started out this year in a comparable committee, the Committee on 
Armed Services, saying that this should be the year of the troops. To 
everyone's credit on the Committee on Armed Services and on the 
Subcommittee on Defense and the full Committee on Appropriations, they 
have helped make that come true.
  The young men and young women of our military will not only receive 
pension reform, but they will receive pay increases long overdue. On 
the subject of this particular issue which is before us, there is the 
old saying: The more emotion, the less reason. Let us look in the past 
and take a chapter from the past and particularly B-2, which by the 
way, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) pointed out so 
clearly, what a wonderful job it did in the recent Kosovo conflict. I 
am so proud of what they did, the young men and women assigned in the 
Whiteman Air Force base and the B-2 509th Wing.
  The B-2 debate was over several years. It was arduous, hair pulling, 
and difficult. But at the end of the day, there was a decision made by 
the committees and backed up by this Congress on what we needed. This 
is not a matter of F-15Es versus the F-22, because we are comparing 
apples to oranges. The F-22 is the air-to-air fighting. The F-15E is an 
air-to-ground system. So let us not look at it that way. Of course, 
would I like to have F-15Es? We would like to have more, of course.
  But what I think we should do is, with as much reason as we can, look 
at the dollars that are available, look at the need that is necessary 
for our national interests, and make that decision along the lines that 
we did for the B-2. America will come out well.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the dean of our delegation.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleagues. We are at an 
interesting part of this process. As the review of this system has 
gone, there is obviously both national security issues here and 
parochial issues, and all of us are suspect to some of that.
  But when we look at the legislative process here, the Executive 
Branch thought it made sense to continue with this plane. Three of the 
other committees with jurisdiction, both the authorizing committee at 
the House and the two committees in the Senate thought it made sense to 
go forward with this plane. Miraculously, the money disappeared from 
the House Committee on Appropriations to other worthy causes.
  That is what we always have to juggle here. There are lots of worthy 
causes we face. The kinds of arguments against the system are the kinds 
of arguments we always hear on new systems: Well, it is not quite as 
good as it is going to be, it really does not give us

[[Page H6272]]

 that additional benefit. The experts have said it does give us that 
additional benefit.
  Frankly, as we read today in the paper, the same arguments were made 
as new generations of planes were brought forward in the past. The F-
14, the F-15, the F-16, the F-18, in each case, there was a chorus that 
said these planes did not give us the additional capabilities that we 
needed.
  The one lesson it seems to me that is clear that we should have 
learned in the last several conflicts is air power is one of the 
critical ingredients, that strikes of missiles from planes and other 
systems, that those systems that can deliver our force, without putting 
our own servicemen and women in harm's way, are of a critical nature.
  It seems to me that this process has kind of jumped the rails that, 
through the executive, the two Senate committees, and the authorizing 
committee in the House, this system was deemed to be worthy. When we 
got to the appropriation process, it suddenly lost all that merit.
  I think we have to go back and take a harder look at it. I think 
there is nothing wrong with trying to get a better price out of defense 
contractors. All of us have them in our districts. They do an important 
part for our country. Their prime goal is to make sure we have good 
systems. But we have to make sure those systems come to the taxpayers 
at reasonable cost.
  I hope this process will force us to reexamine all the costs across 
the board, but to make sure that we do not abandon this system that, in 
the general recognition, has been a system that would advance our 
capabilities and give our servicemen and women a far better system than 
they have today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express grave concerns about the cut of $1.8 
billion in F-22 production funding in this bill--a move that many 
believe signals the end of the program.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the things that makes the American armed forces 
so powerful is our unquestioned supremacy in the skies. Our military 
chiefs base their doctrine on our ability to achieve this.
  The F-22 is the Air Force's number one priority, because it will 
ensure air dominance far out into the future.
  Let me quote Richard Hallion, the Air Force Historian, who has an op-
ed in the Washington Post today:

     . . . After Korea we took air supremacy for granted, and 
     Vietnam showed the sorry results. Over North Vietnam, 
     American airmen barely had air superiority . . .

  He also notes:

     Many of the same arguments made against the F-22 were made in 
     the 1970s against the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18: They were 
     too advanced, too complex, too costly, etc. The wisdom of 
     producing them has since been proven repeatedly over the 
     Middle East and the Balkans.

  But what of the future, Mr. Chairman? Surface-to-air missile systems, 
radars, and tactical fighters are still being developed in other 
nations around the world. In twenty years, who knows where they might 
have proliferated? The answer--we can't know.
  Sure, today our dominance is unquestioned. But if we decide not to 
prepare for the future, we jeopardize our future.
  It's the Air Force's job to seize the skies, Mr. Chairman. It's also 
the Air Force's job to make sure we can keep seizing them--tomorrow, in 
a year, in ten or twenty years.
  We have to recall the wisdom we had in the 1970s when we went with 
the F-15. We need to ensure that the air dominance we rely on will 
still be there for us in the unforeseeable crises that loom two decades 
away.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to tell my colleagues that this 
bill does a lot for our troops around America. But I just cannot 
support the elimination of the F-22.
  Readiness, my colleagues, is the key issue, and it is based upon 
modernization of our forces. The issue is whether or not we are going 
to give our young men and women who are fighting on the front line the 
technology to win that fight.
  I remember one time when I was a young boy, someone came to me when I 
was first learning about defense; and he said, ``Son, you never want to 
bring a knife to a gun fight. You lose every time.'' This saying came 
to mind when I looked at this issue about the F-22 because it is an 
issue about technology.
  In that debate over this technology, we have heard about U.S. 
successes in the Persian Gulf and even in Kosovo that provided a 
rationale to ``pause'' production of the F-22. Upon further and closer 
examination, that argument just does not fly, and let me tell my 
colleagues why. Because the Serbian as well as the Iraqi Air Forces 
never truly engaged our pilots in a fight or sustained aerial combat. 
In any future combat, it would be foolish of us to presuppose the bad 
guys would be afraid to challenge our forces.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard arguments that the U.S. successes in the 
Persian Gulf War and the Kosovo Conflict provide the rationale to 
``pause'' the production of the F-22. However, upon closer inspection, 
this argument does not fly, most notably because neither the Iraqis nor 
the Serbian Air Forces actually engaged our fighters in sustained 
aerial combat.
  There is no doubt in anyone's mind that our forces performed 
brilliantly, however it would be tactically inept to pre-suppose that 
future ``bad guys'' will be afraid to send fighters up to challenge our 
air forces, as the Iraqis and Serbians were.
  Further, we should not penalize the U.S. Air Force for being 
``without peer'' in the world by not funding the technology to keep 
them there in the future. It is incumbent upon Congress to ensure that 
when the next adversary we face decides to fight, and not run away, our 
pilots are equipped with the aircraft and the technology that will 
allow continued dominance in the air.
  I would like to read an excerpt from a statement written by seven 
former Secretaries of Defense, men who were chosen to lead our nation's 
armed forces, and whose commitment to national security is without 
question.
  These men, William Perry, Caspar Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, Donald 
Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, Harold Brown and James Schlesinger, all 
comprehend the importance of preserving American command of the air and 
state:

       It is not enough to say that something better may be 
     available in the future. Something better is always available 
     in the future. Serious threats to American air superiority 
     may arise sooner, and the nation's security cannot tolerate a 
     loss of command of the air. Congress and the Administration 
     must focus on this fundamental reality, and fully fund the 
     nation's only truly stealthy air superiority fighter.

  That fighter is the F-22 Raptor.
  Secretary of Defense Cohen stated last week that, ``The proposed cut 
jeopardizes our future warfighting capability and will place our forces 
at higher risk.'' He went on to say that he could not accept a defense 
bill that kills this cornerstone program. A pretty powerful statement 
from the man who has been chosen to lead our armed forces today and 
into the millennium.
  Let me also point out Mr. Chairman, that this is not simply an Air 
Force program. This fighter provides the basis for all joint 
warfighting in the future. Why? No U.S. soldier has been killed by 
hostile air power in over forty years. In order to assure that we 
provide our Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force ground personnel this same 
level of protection, we must provide for the future of air dominance 
today.
  We must be far-sighted in our modernization efforts and cutting of 
$1.8 billion from the F-22 account is myopic, at best.
  I'll close by saying that it's interesting to note that the $1.8 
billion spent on the F-22 Raptor this year is equivalent to roughly 10 
hours' worth of Federal spending. In my mind, a bargain to bring air 
dominance to our nation's armed forces in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support the funding level 
for the F-22 Raptor that was passed in the House Defense Authorization 
Bill and the other Chamber's Defense Authorization and Appropriations 
Bills. The time is now.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) from the Committee on 
Appropriations for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for this 
opportunity to raise my concerns with section 8128 of the bill.
  This provision would accelerate the auction for certain frequency 
spectrum, and I want to be sure that, in doing so, Congress sends the 
signal that it is not releasing the FCC from its existing obligations 
to perform a proper allocation and licensing process. If not, important 
public safety uses like police and fire services operating in adjacent 
bands would be exposed to serious harm. Further, by ensuring that the 
FCC completes a responsible evaluation of the public interest in 
allocating spectrum for this auction, the

[[Page H6273]]

FCC can help to secure a more successful auction for the American 
taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois for yielding to me. It is correct to say the FCC does have an 
obligation under law to make a public interest determination, prior to 
auctioning this spectrum, concerning which telecommunications services 
should be eligible to operate on it. The FCC must structure its service 
and auction rules so as to implement the public interest determination.
  It is important to ensure that the FCC may not, for example, permit 
any use of this spectrum that might result in harmful interference to 
public safety systems, especially those used by States and localities 
in their important crime and fire prevention pursuits which operate on 
adjacent bands to what would be auctioned here.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the distinguished gentleman from 
California, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, for bringing 
this bill to the floor, and I seek his commitment to ensure that the 
resolution of our shared concerns are clarified in conference.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to work with 
the gentleman as we go towards conference. I am delighted to have his 
cooperation in this matter.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest 
respect for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), subcommittee 
chairman, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), ranking 
member.
  However, I must rise to express my grave reservations and concerns 
about the decision to cut $1.8 billion in procurement funding the F-22.

                              {time}  1615

  The Air Force and the Department of Defense developed the F-22 as a 
modern air superiority fighter to seize and hold air dominance in 
future conflicts. The F-22 is the cornerstone of our Nation's global 
air power in the 21st century and will ensure our technological lead 
for the next 30 years, just like the F-15 did 25 years ago.
  Pausing or delaying production puts our forces at higher risk and 
hurts thousands of workers whose skills are critical in fighter 
sophistication and safety and reliability. In addition, delaying the 
program just 2 years will add approximately $8 billion in completely 
unnecessary costs to the F-22 program.
  No matter how much money this bill throws at the F-15, the cost of 
sustaining the current F-15 fleet will increasingly compromise Air 
Force modernization.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and first of all I would like to discuss the appropriations bill 
from the standpoint of the authorizers looking at this bill out of the 
personnel accounts.
  With regard to recruiting and retention and retirement, I extend 
great compliments to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and 
also to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) as the chairman. 
Without the military personnel recruiting initiatives in the bill, the 
request for military services, I think, would fall way short.
  I would like to extend great compliments on the pay initiatives, not 
only the reforming of the pay tables but the 4.8 percent pay raise will 
go a long way. We also have many different retention bonuses, pro-pays 
and flight pays which will be very meaningful not only in the NCO mid-
grade officer level but throughout the force.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the gentleman for 
his effort in making sure that the troops did get their pay raise and 
the way it was apportioned. All of us are indebted, including the 
military services, for the gentleman's work in that particular area.
  Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for those comments.
  What will also be very important on the retention issue is the 
retirement initiatives. Repeal of the REDUX will go a long way. When I 
think about this bill, I just want to say to every soldier, sailor, 
airman and marine, ``This bill is about you.''
  But, Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis). As I reviewed the appropriations, the mark, I 
noticed that there were some, well, I do not want to be as strong as to 
say inequities, but I cannot find a better word for it. Out of the 
guard and reserve equipment accounts I compliment both the chairman and 
ranking member for almost an $800 million plus-up for their accounts, 
but 83 percent of that is dedicated right now for the air guard and the 
army guard, with only 17 percent for all other reserve components.
  For instance, Mr. Chairman, the Air Force National Guard. Forty-three 
percent of that pot goes to them, while only 3 percent goes to the Air 
Force Reserve. What I would like to do with the chairman is have an 
assurance that he can work with myself and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) to bring equity to the report language as we 
move to conference.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleague 
that I not only appreciate his work on the authorizing committee, but 
also on the subcommittee he chairs and has these serious 
responsibilities of which we speak.
  I want to assure the gentleman that I intend to work closely with 
him, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), following 
our debate today as we go to conference, as well as in the years ahead.
  Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman for his time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) so that 
he might distribute that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson) has 5 additional minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and I want to thank him personally for the 
help and mentorship that he has provided me throughout the year, and 
especially on this issue.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for 
his generosity with the time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and let me say first of all that I do not have a dog in this 
fight. I represent Shaw Air Force Base and I represent flyers who 
fought in the Gulf and flyers who fought from Aviano, General Dan Leaf, 
and they believe in stealth and they have convinced me it is the way to 
go. They also believe in the mission of air superiority, and I am here 
to speak for them.
  I am also here to speak as an old cost analyst. That is where I cut 
my teeth in the Pentagon. And what we were taught as cost analysts is, 
the first rule of analysis is forget sunk cost. If we get to the sunk 
cost of this program, and I am told it is about $20 billion, I do not 
know as much as I should to be talking, the numbers change 
dramatically. Because the relevant comparison is not the program unit 
cost, in procurement parlance, the relevant cost comparison for F-15X 
purposes is procurement costs.
  Program unit cost includes everything, divided by the number of units 
we are going to buy. Procurement unit cost includes just those costs we 
are going to procure, spare parts and airspace ground equipment, 
prospectively. The difference in this case is $183 billion to $187 
billion for program unit cost, but $117 billion then-year dollars for 
procurement unit cost. At $117 billion, this airplane becomes very, 
very competitive, just in cost dollars, with anything the F-15X would 
look like.

[[Page H6274]]

  Secondly, we were taught to look at life cycle cost. That is 
critically important. What are we worried about right now? O&M. That is 
where life cycle cost gets captured. The life cycle cost of this 
system, if it comes in as planned, is supposed to be significantly 
less. About 37 percent less.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is smiling. I do not 
know whether it will be retained, but at least that is the program 
objective, 37 percent less. We are supposed to be able to get 8\1/2\ 
sorties per airplane before major maintenance with this airplane, as 
opposed to about five with the F-15. Over time that makes a big 
difference, if indeed that objective is realized.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, we need to look at commonality. One of the 
things that is being developed in this program in conjunction with 
other programs is the engine. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) was just pointing out to us that the engine in this 
airplane is the same engine as in the JSF. If we buy fewer units of 
this engine, because we are not buying 400 or 500 of these airplanes, 
the JSF is going up significantly, let me tell my colleagues.
  So this is a way of spreading cost, buying the new engine for the 
same airplane, and we should really commend the Air Force and all the 
services for trying to get together in one common airframe and using 
one common engine as well.
  Finally, there are related costs, associated costs. Don Wright, as 
the Secretary of the Air Force, when he was trying to sell the B-2, had 
a favorite chart. He had all the things that did not have to fly when 
the B-2 flew a mission, all the escorts and the chasers and the 
associated aircraft that did not have to fly when the B-2 flew, because 
it made the single-unit cost of the B-2 look like a much better deal. 
Just keep that in mind. Air superiority matters when it keeps the AWACS 
flying, the JSTARS flying, because it makes all the rest of this 
conventional stuff work.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill we are 
considering today but in opposition to the portion that cuts all 
funding for procurement of the F-22 aircraft. If the F-22 is 
eliminated, it could be decades before we are able to replace our 
standard air superiority aircraft, the F-15, with a suitable 
replacement.
  In future conflicts this could mean American pilots in combat flying 
planes as old as their fathers. I fear the path we are headed down will 
lead to many more American pilots at risk, because they will be going 
up against potentially superior enemy aircraft.
  I received a letter last week, Mr. Chairman, from a constituent who 
wrote he was attending a World War II veteran survivors meeting, and he 
wrote, ``We will conduct a memorial service for those who died in the 
past year with a roll call, candle lighting and prayers, and also 
remember those who gave their lives and never came home from the war.'' 
He continues, ``We need the F-22 program to keep our air power the best 
in the world, both for our pilots and for our country.''
  Mr. Chairman, let us give our military personnel the best equipment 
possible. I sincerely hope that this program will be fully restored in 
conference.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2561, 
because I believe it is very important that we continue to move the 
appropriations process forward and because I salute the hard work of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) on this issue. However, I 
have some strong reservations about the legislation before us.
  Let me say that I recognize the very difficult budgetary challenges 
that the gentleman from California and the Subcommittee on Defense 
faced in assembling this bill. Every Member of Congress who follows 
defense closely is concerned with our defense needs and knows that they 
are underfunded, and I join my colleagues in wanting to see our Armed 
Services remain the best in the world. So knowing that we share the 
same goals, I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman to 
improve this legislation as we proceed to conference.
  One element of the bill I hope the committee will improve in 
conference is the decision to pause procurement of the F-22. But make 
no mistake, there is no pause. A pause in this program will result in 
the death of this program. A pause tells our enemies the United States 
has stopped reaching ahead to the future.
  Some have argued that we do not need the F-22 because there are no 
other enemy aircraft that can challenge the fighter planes we have 
today. Others have said the Joint Strike Fighter is all we need for the 
future. I am here to say that both of those arguments are wrong. Many 
of the Members here today have attended the Air Force's classified 
briefings where we have had outlined the current and future threats to 
our air superiority. I believe the top officers in the Air Force, men 
who have given their entire careers to the safety of this country, know 
what they are talking about. I believe the threats that they have 
outlined are real, and I believe the Air Force is right to make the F-
22 its priority, and the Congress should too.

  Members should also know the Joint Strike Fighter is not a substitute 
for the F-22. The F-22 is designed for absolute air superiority; to 
engage and destroy enemy aircraft at greater stand-off distances, to 
operate at supersonic speeds without using afterburners, to be stealth, 
and to save the lives of our pilots. Do not be misled, the F-15 is not 
stealth. It does not have the same performance range. It is 30 years 
old. It does a good job, but it cannot be modified endlessly into the 
future. It cannot be the advanced technology for the 21st century.
  Likewise, do not be misled into believing that the Joint Strike 
Fighter is a substitute for the F-22. They are designed to enhance each 
other's capabilities. The Joint Strike Fighter is a multi-role tactical 
aircraft, not an air superiority aircraft. It is meant to follow the F-
22 into combat, not lead the charge. In fact, we need both planes.
  And that leads me to my final point, Mr. Chairman. We cannot just 
skip the F-22 and go on to the Joint Strike Fighter. Killing the F-22 
means the Joint Strike Fighter will also be killed, or at least 
seriously injured and delayed. Too much of the technology for both 
planes is being developed simultaneously. If the F-22 is dropped, the 
Joint Strike Fighter goes too. It is not possible to separate those 
contracts.
  My colleagues, the defense budget is simply inadequate. We should not 
have to choose between today and tomorrow for our armed forces. While 
it is difficult to balance these needs, it is still possible. We should 
not be penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to our national 
security. I ask my colleagues to please help us work with the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
to restore the F-22 in conference.
  In conclusion, I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
for including some very good measures for our military personnel, and I 
thank him for his commitment to our Armed Services.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise acknowledging the 
difficult task the chairman of the full committee and subcommittee 
have, as well as our ranking members, but I must rise in support of 
continued funding for procurement of the F-22.
  Basic knowledge of warfare states that one must have undisputed air 
superiority before introduction of ground troops. Achieving air 
superiority is the first order of business for any joint force 
commander. Opponents of the F-22 say that the current stable of fighter 
aircraft will be able to handle any foreign opponent aircraft. This 
argument does not address the growing sophistication of the surface-to-
air-missiles that are currently available on the market today and their 
cheap availability.

[[Page H6275]]

  The F-22 will stand a much better chance against such threats than 
the F-15 in the future. I support continued funding of the F-22 and the 
full procurement. The Secretary of Defense has come out in support of 
this position and the Air Force has made it their number one 
modernization priority.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the cochair of the 
Air Force Caucus.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I think, like others, I am coming down 
here to urge the Committee on Appropriations to restore the needed 
funding for the F-22 in their upcoming conference.
  I think the F-22 advanced fighter aircraft represents, of course, the 
next generation of superior American military aircraft; 1974 was the 
last time we started with an advanced fighter aircraft.
  There is no alternative to the F-22 in the Air Force inventory for 
future combat operations that can provide or evolve to provide the 
capabilities that are inherent in the F-22, nor is there an alternative 
in development.
  Richard Hallion writes in today's Washington Post, ``Failure to 
procure the F-22 would mark the first time since World War II that the 
United States has consciously chosen to send its soldiers, sailors, and 
airmen into harm's way while knowingly conceding the lead in modern 
fighter development to a variety of foreign nations that may sell their 
products on the world's arms market.''
  America needs the F-22 and it needs it now.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the most fundamental 
component of America's future defense needs in maintaining our air 
dominance during military combat--the F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft.
  I cannot speak on behalf of the F-22 any better than Richard Hallion 
has done in an op-ed that appears in today's Washington Post.
  Mr. Hallion writes that, ``It takes more than a decade to develop a 
fighter, and it is imperative that we make the right choice. The 
hallmarks of a dominant fighter are the ability to evade and minimize 
detection, transit threat area quickly and exploit information warfare 
to react more quickly than one's foes. Only one aircraft contemplated 
for service today can do that: the F-22.
  The F-22 advanced fighter aircraft represents the next generation of 
superior American military aircraft. The F-22 combines ``radar-evading 
stealth with the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds and to exploit 
and display data from various sources to better inform the pilot about 
threats and opportunities.''
  The U.S. Air Force has become victim to their own military success. 
The action by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the full 
Appropriations Committee to cut funding for the procurement of the F-22 
comes on the heels of the Air Force's dominant performance against the 
Yugoslavian military and their air defense systems.
  The Yugoslavian success has been the third consecutive military 
campaign since 1990 that the U.S. military has been able to dominate 
the air. Mr. Hallion writes that, ``exploiting dominant aerospace power 
is the irreplaceable keystone of our post-Cold War strategy for 
successful quick-response crisis intervention.''
  ``Seeking air superiority should never be what we choose to live 
with. Rather, air supremacy should be the minimum we seek, and air 
dominance our desired goal. Control of the air is fragile and can be 
lost from a variety of causes, including poor doctrine and tactics, 
deficient training, poor strategy and rules of engagement. But worst of 
all, it can be lost through poor aircraft.''
  As a rest of the world continues to develop advance military aircraft 
and continues to develop high-quality surface-to-air and other 
missiles, America's ability to continue to dominate the air in military 
engagements with the existing arsenal of aircraft will be greatly 
diminished.
  There is no alternative to the F-22 in the Air Force inventory for 
future combat operations that can provide or evolve to provide the 
capabilities inherent in the F-22. Nor is there an alternative in 
development. The F-22 will clear the skies of enemy aircraft and 
destroy enemy air defenses.
  The F-22 will breach enemy defenses, bomb highly defended strategic 
targets and interdict enemy forces. No other aircraft in the U.S. 
inventory or in development can meet that need.
  The actions to withhold sufficient funding for the F-22 by the 
Appropriations Committee will in fact increase the cost to the American 
taxpayer. The reduction of the FY 2000 funding for the F-22 has a net 
impact of terminating the current production program and increases 
total Air Force costs by $8.4 billion or roughly the current cost of 85 
additional F-22 aircraft.
  Finally, I would like to close with more words from Richard Hallion. 
``Failure to procure the F-22 would mark the first time since the 
Second World War that the United States has consciously chosen to send 
its soldiers, sailors and airmen into harm's way while knowingly 
conceding the lead in modern fighter development to a variety of 
foreign nations that may sell their products on the world's arms 
market. America needs the F-22, and needs it now.
  I urge Chairman Young, Chairman Lewis and all future conferees to the 
Defense Appropriations bills to accede to the Senate position on fully 
funding for FY 2000 for America's most significant next generation 
fighter aircraft that will preserve America's national security and 
protect our national security interests around the world. Work to 
protect the F-22.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf).
  (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the continuation of the 
procurement of the F-22 because it is vital to the continued air 
dominance for the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, air superiority has become the essential piece of 
military action, and the F-22 will guarantee our success into the next 
century.
  This program must remain on schedule to ensure that the U.S. forces 
responsible to keep this country's vital interests safe have the 
absolute best technology available.
  The proliferation of advanced surface-to-air weapons, systems as seen 
in Kosovo, serve to underscore the need for the F-22 now. At a time 
when we are uniquely aware of the challenges and demands placed on our 
military, we must go forward with this program.
  I ask my colleagues to support the F-22.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) my colleague.
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to thank my friends, 
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Lewis), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha), the ranking member, for the great job that they have done in a 
very tough environment. We have all had very difficult budget issues to 
resolve, and this is yet another one.
  But I also rise to talk about securing America's future. Part of the 
cornerstone of securing America's future is to provide for a strong 
national defense. In order for our continued strong national defense in 
this country, we have got to maintain air superiority.
  Now, what we are doing by reducing the funding of $1.8 billion for 
the F-22 program is to move the F-15 into an upgrade status. The F-15, 
make no mistake about it, has been a great airplane for the United 
States Air Force. But the threat out there today, as my friend from 
California has already alluded to, is the SU-27, which is on parity 
with the F-15.
  If you upgrade the F-15, we are looking at the SU-35 that is a 
Russian-made airplane coming down the line that will be superior to the 
upgraded F-15. Yet they have another airplane on the drawing board 
already. We simply will not be in parity if we do not have the F-22.
  Sure, cost is a problem. But can cost measure saving lives of our 
young men and women? The F-22 is an absolute necessity to maintain air 
superiority. There are three things that the F-22 has as an asset that 
no other airplane has. It has integrated avionics. It has supercruise 
capability. And it has stealth.
  The F-15 has none of these. The upgrade will have none of these. The 
F-22 has the capability of first-day, first-shot, first-kill. Against 
the other airplanes that are out there today, the F-15, even with its 
upgrades and modifications, will not have that capability.

[[Page H6276]]

  If we are going to maintain air superiority that has been so valuable 
and such an absolute necessity in the Persian Gulf and in Kosovo and 
other areas of the Balkans, we have got to have the F-22.
  I urge the chairman to really negotiate hard in conference on this 
issue.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying how much I appreciate the 
efforts especially of the gentleman from California (Mr. Chambliss) who 
helped put together a working group of concerned Members of Congress 
who I think have demonstrated this afternoon on both sides of this 
issue concern about national security and safety.
  It is my sincere hope that, as we move forward with the conference, 
that the conferees from the House take into consideration the concerns 
that have been brought forward during this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank especially the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for his kindness and mentoring through this 
process.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I also yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen for yielding me 
the time.
  Let me say that I am going to support this bill. The ranking member 
and the chairman of the committee have worked hard on a bill that 
balances quality of life, readiness, and modernization in the face of a 
budget shortfall in a long list of very many needs.
  There are three reasons that I am standing in support of including 
the F-22 in the final bill. And that is, number one, the threat. That 
has been outlined fairly well by previous speakers, but let me just put 
it this way:
  When George Washington was President, the Congress had a bill that 
said that our standing military would never be more than 5,000 troops; 
and the President at that time said that would be great, but let us 
also pass a bill that we cannot be invaded by any country that has more 
than 3,000 troops.
  We do want a fair fight in America. And our enemies are not 
cooperating. While we may pause on the F-22, they may not pause on 
their development of stealth fighters. We know from our classified 
briefings, that the threat is real.
  The second reason I support the F-22 is because of the slippage. If 
we hold back because of a very complicated purchasing system that 
involves over 200 contracts by the producer, it will cost us an 
additional $6 billion to get up and running again. It also will cost us 
some soft costs.
  For example, with the F-22, the Air Force does not need the EF-11s. 
But without it, they will need them. And so, we are going to have to 
start spending money on that again. The slippage cost is real, and 
again it is about $6 billion.
  The third reason I support the F-22 is because the Joint Strike 
Fighter, as the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) said very 
articulately, is a complement to the F-22. It is not a replacement.
  I believe there is some other money out there. We did not spend all 
our money that we had appropriated in the bombing of Kosovo. Maybe we 
should look at going back into that supplemental bill and bringing some 
of this money back to make this happen. I am not sure.
  But I appreciate the gentleman listening to us, and I appreciate the 
leadership on the issue and hope we can get this done in the final 
version of the bill.
  The House Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY00 provides 
an extremely important allocation of resources in a serious effort to 
improve critical shortcomings affecting the readiness of our armed 
forces. This bill meets the budget authority and outlay limits set in 
the Committee's 302(b) allocation, provides a critical $15.5 billion 
increase over appropriations in FY99, and provides $2.8 billion above 
the President's request. This legislation goes a long way to address 
critical readiness, recruitment, retention, operational maintenance, 
and quality of life needs that are so important for our military. 
However, I am concerned about one aspect of the legislation's strategy, 
cutting programmed funding for the initial production of the Air 
Force's number one development priority, the F-22, Raptor.
  We expect our military to remain the world's best, head and shoulders 
above any potential aggressor. We demand that our armed forces reign 
supreme in personnel, training, professionalism, and equipment. We do 
not want parity with our enemies, we demand superiority. We do not want 
to win conflicts by attrition but by overwhelming our foes. A most 
critical aspect of our superiority is our ability to achieve and 
maintain all superiority in any conflict. Furthermore, today Americans 
have grown to expect to win conflicts with minimal or even no 
casualities. The best trained pilots in the most advanced aircraft are 
the great enabler in any conflict whether to protect our Navy, or to 
allow the introduction and free maneuver of our ground forces. Air 
superiority is vital. Experience in modern warfare has continued to 
reflect the importance of this from success in World War II to 
operations during Desert Storm and Operation Allied Force.
  The F-22 aircraft is being produced to replace the F-15 fighter and 
to accomplish its air superiority mission beginning in 2005. The F-15 
currently represents 1960's technology and the aging fleet will average 
26 years old when the F-22 is scheduled to be operational. Today's F-
15's have served our country well, but in the future our pilots will be 
at risk. Its capabilities today are at parity with the Russian SU-27, 
MIG-29 and by 2005 will be at a disadvantaged facing the Russian SU-35 
or the French Rafael, and the European Fighter 2000 aircraft that will 
be available on the world market. Additionally, the surface to air 
missile threat continues to advance world wide. today, the SA-10 and 
SA-12 millile availability pose a threat to the F-15. Proliferation of 
SA-10 and SA-12 capability has increased from four countries in 1985 to 
fourteen in 1995 and an estimated 22 by 2005. The F-22 will have the 
capability to counter the surface to air missile threat through stealth 
technology, supercruise capability that will significantly reduce 
missile engagement opportunity, maneuverability and unequaled pilot 
awareness.
  The F-22 aircraft does bear costs, $19 billion have been invested to 
date, but the cost and advanced technology provide significant 
efficiencies and long term savings. The F-22 will reduce by half the 
number of maintenance personnel for each aircraft. It is expected to 
have 30 percent reduction in direct operations and sustainment costs 
per squadron per year when compared to the F-15. A quicker combat 
turnaround time will allow higher sorties rates during a conflict. The 
F-22 program costs are under control and are within the Congressional 
mandated cost caps for both development and production. This plane 
utilizes cutting edge technology to ensure our Air Force continues to 
maintain our nation's superiority in air combat.
  Based upon the status of the current F-22 program, a pause in funding 
the F-22 procurement requested for FY00 would put the entire program at 
serious risk. Contract obligations would be breached if aircraft 
procurement is not funded. This would result in at least a three year 
delay in the program, would increase costs by $6-8 billion, and exceed 
the caps set by Congress. The production delay could seriously affect 
numerous suppliers that could not afford to stop and restart production 
causing significant erosion of the program's industrial base. Such a 
pause would seriously disrupt an intricate supply system established in 
all but a few states.
  A pause or end of the F-22 program would have a very negative impact 
on the future of an important complementary aircraft, the Joint Strike 
Fighter (JSF). The JSF also under development is being designed as a 
multi-role aircraft for three services to replace the capabilities of 
the F-16 and A-10 fleet, with fielding goals in FY10. It is being 
developed to perform as an air-to-ground combat aircraft to complement 
the air-to-air combat role of the F-22. The characteristics of these 
plans will differ greatly. If the F-22 program is killed, the U.S. will 
have a void in the capabilities required by the F-22, the action could 
cause great changes to JSF, or require development of a whole new kind 
of aircraft, all of which would delay the fielding of the JSF. 
Additionally, the JSF leverages certain technologies from the F-22, 
including avionics and engines that use the F-22 as a stepping stone 
for advancements. Setback of the F-22 program will degrade progress on 
the JSF. Ultimately, this action could place our air supremacy 
capability in extreme danger.
  Finally, as the F-22 harnesses and employs superb, advanced 
technology, the development and testing of the aircraft does the same. 
Flight testing of two test aircraft has proceeded well. Avionics 
testing has been ongoing through three bench labs and one flying test 
bed, a 757 aircraft with all avionics including a full cockpit from an 
F-22. Advanced computer models have also enhanced the ability to hone 
the technical aspects of the

[[Page H6277]]

plane. Nine aircraft are funded in the Engineering and Manufacturing 
Development (EMD) phase of this program. All nine aircraft will be 
delivered by FY01. Production aicraft that have been requested by the 
Air Force to be funded in FY00 will not complete production until FY03. 
This low rate initial production is necessary to efficiently utilize 
the open delivery line. Testing will be 90% complete and initial 
operational testing and evaluation will complete in mid-year 2003. The 
program minimizes risks and employs efficiency and responsible costing 
to meet delivery milestones. When compared with previous aircraft 
production such as the F-15 and F-16, the F-22 minimizes, by a large 
degree, the number of production aircraft during the EMD phase.
  In closing, the House Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for 
FY00 is a good bill that will provide relief for many aspects of our 
services needs. It goes far to take care of the men and women who serve 
in America's Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. I will vote in 
favor of this legislation, but with apprehension that this bill does an 
injustice to the number one Air Force development priority and a 
critical Department of Defense program that has vital implications on 
how we remain the undisputed air superiority and air supermacy power in 
the world.
  This amendment was offered in the Appropriations Committee by Mr. 
Kingston, but was withdrawn and not offered on the floor.

   New General Provisions Restoring F-22 Funds and Providing Advance 
              Appropriations for Several Program Increases

       In the appropriate place in the Committee Print Bill, 
     insert the following new general provision:
       Sec. Xxxx. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amounts appropriated in this Act for Titles III and 
     IV is hereby reduced by $1,852,075,000 to reflect the 
     deletion of the following amounts for the following programs: 
     $208,000,000 for eight KC-135 re-enginings; $440,000,000 for 
     eight F-15E aircraft; $564,000,000 for KC-130J aircraft; 
     $250,000,000 for one JSTARS aircraft; $98,000,000 for five F-
     16 C/D aircraft; $63,000,000 for one Operational Support 
     Aircraft; $100,000,000 for additional AMRAAM procurement; 
     $50,000,000 for additional JDAM procurement; $79,075,000 for 
     B-2 upgrades; Provided, in addition to the amounts provided 
     elsewhere in this or any other act, $1,852,075,000 is hereby 
     appropriated to be available October 1, 2000, until expended, 
     in the following amounts for the following programs: 
     $208,000,000 for eight KC-135 re-enginings; $440,000,000 for 
     eight F-15E aircraft; $564,000,000 for KC-130J aircraft; 
     $250,000,000 for one JSTARS aircraft; $98,000,000 for five F-
     16 C/D aircraft; $63,000,000 for one Operational Support 
     Aircraft; $100,000,000 for additional AMRAAM procurement; 
     $50,000,000 for additional JDAM procurement; $79,075,000 for 
     B-2 upgrades: Provided further, in addition to the amounts 
     appropriated elsewhere in title II of this Act, 
     $1,574,981,000 is provided for F-22 procurement and 
     $277,094,000 for F-22 Advance Procurement.

                          Why We Need the F-22


                                 threat

     Need F-22 to counter future and current surface-to-air 
         missile (SA 10/12) threats. The F-15 cannot operate in 
         this environment by itself
     21 countries expected to possess SA 10/12's (advanced SAMS) 
         by 2005
     237 of world's 267 nations have surface to air missiles
     There will be a five fold increase in the number of countries 
         with radar guided air to air missiles
     As many as 700 MIG-21's may be upgraded between 1995 and 2000
     F-15 began service in early 1970's (almost 25 years ago)
     When F-22 becomes operational in FY06, the F-15 will average 
         26 years old
     When JSF becomes operational in FY10, the F-16 will be 24 
         years old
     30-40 year old F-15's put our pilots at risk
     Today the F-15 is just at parity with the SU-27 and MIG-29.
     By 2005 the F-15 will be disadvantage to the SU-35 and the 
         export versions of the Rafale and European Fighter 2000
     Air to air missiles are proliferating and becoming more 
         capable


                       impact of slipping program

     3 year delay in program, voids contracts, and kills program
     This is not a pause, it kills the production program
     Increase in costs breaks the contract price and the 
         Congressional costs caps
     Increases Air Force costs by $6.5 billion
     Set back for Army's number one priority the Commanche 
         helicopter since they have some common systems)
     $16 billion already invested to date
     Loss of industrial base to support F-22 program
     Upgrading the F-15 would cost about $26 million per plane


                                  f-22

     F-22 replaces the F-15 for all weather air superiority and 
         deep attack
     Increased capabilities: stealth, supercruise, 
         maneuverability, avionics, weapons payload
     First look, first shot, first kill against multiple targets
     Flight tests have gone well
     Costs are controlled, costs are within funding caps set by 
         Congress
     The F-22 will reduce by half the number of maintenance 
         personnel for each aircraft
     F-22 will cost $500 million less to operate and support over 
         20 years than an F-15 squadron
     F-15 afterburner operations are limited to 5-7 minutes, F-22 
         can operate at supercruise for a significant period of 
         time without afterburners
     20% lower combat turnaround time for the F-22/higher sortie 
         rate
     Lower deployment requirements (14 C-17s to deploy F-15 vs. 4 
         C-17s for F-22)


                                  jsf

     JSF leverages technologies from the F-22 (avionics, engines)
     JSF is a multi-role air to ground fighter to complement (not 
         replace) the air-to-air role of F-22
     JSF replaces the F-16 and A-10 and meets requirements for 
         other military services
     Without the F-22, the requirements for JSF change and will 
         delay JSF by several years

       for more information contact Congressman Kingston or 
     Congressman Chambliss.

             Point Paper on HAC-D Mark to F-22 Procurement


                background--why the usaf needs the f-22

       The 21st Century Force Structure--The Air Force's 
     modernization strategy is built on the proper mix of ``High'' 
     capability F-22s and ``Low'' cost Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) 
     to achieve the dominant capability and operations tempo to 
     support Joint Vision 2010's goal of full spectrum dominance.
       F-22 is the high-capability force enabler designed to 
     accomplish the most demanding missions of air superiority and 
     attack of high-value, highly defended targets.
       A combination of stealth, supercruise, integrated avionics, 
     and larger internal air-to-air weapons payload are its 
     primary attributes.
       The JSF is the low-cost majority of the force--balance of 
     affordability and capability allows procurement of greater 
     numbers to perform a variety of missions and sustain the 
     required high tempo of modern warfare.
       JSF will rely on the F-22 for air superiority.
       JSF will modernize the largest part of our fleet providing 
     an affordable replacement for the F-16 and A-10.
       JSF is dependent upon F-22 technologies and will complement 
     the F-22 in the future as the F-16 complements the F-15 
     today.
       The Need for the F-22--Joint Vision 2010 requires the Air 
     Force to achieve Air Dominance--the ability to completely 
     control adversary's vertical battlespace.
       The current air superiority fighter, the F-15, is at parity 
     today with the SU-27 and MIG-29; by IOC for F-22 in 2005, the 
     F-15 will be at a disadvantage with the fielding of the SU-35 
     and export versions of the Rafale and Typhoon, and the 
     proliferation of advanced air-to-air missiles such as the AA-
     11, AA-X-12, and MICA.
       The development and proliferation of advanced surface-to-
     air missiles (SAMs) such as the SA-10 and SA-12 result in a 
     sanctuary for the enemy because the F-15 will be unable to 
     operate in this environment without a protracted, asset 
     intensive, defense suppression campaign.
       F-22's attributes of stealth, supercruise, and integrated 
     avionics will allow it to operate in the presence of the 
     total threat--emerging threat aircraft, advanced SAMs, and 
     advanced air-to-air missiles.
       Provides American forces the freedom from attack, freedom 
     to maneuver and freedom to attack.
       the Time is Now--The current Air Force fighter 
     modernization program is an affordable and effective solution 
     demanded by the increasing age of our current fighter force 
     structure.
       By F-22 ICO in 2005, the average age of the F-15 will be 26 
     years old.
       By JSF IOC in 2010, the average age of the F-16 will be 24 
     years old.
       F-22 is an essential investment to achieve air dominance--
     the key enabler for 21st Century Combat Operations.


 discussion--impact of the hac-d reduction on the current f-22 program

       The proposed reduction of the F-22 FY00 funding has a net 
     impact of terminating the current production program and 
     increases total Air Force costs by $6.5 Billion (does not 
     include costs for Service Life Extension of F-15 to 
     accommodate 2 year slip to F-22 Initial Operational 
     Capability).
       Termination of the current production program--The current 
     F-22 production strategy to procure all 339 aircraft within 
     the Congressional Cost cap of $39.8B Key elements of this 
     strategy are: fixed price options for the PRTV and Lot 1; 
     target price curve (TPC) for Lots 2-5; and multi-year 
     contracts for lots 5-12.
       Impact: Termination of the Lot 1 buy voids the fixed price 
     agreement for the PRTV/Lot 1 buy and contractually requires 
     termination of the PRTV aircraft buy. This in turn breaks the 
     TPC and results in a production cost increase over the 
     Congressional cost caps. A new production strategy initiated 
     in FY02 with an 8 aircraft buy (requires Advance Buy in FY01) 
     and a new production profile (8, 10, 16, 24, 36) results in a 
     production cost increase of $5.3B, which breaks the 
     Congressionally mandated production cost cap of $39.8B.
       Extension of the EMD program by 15 months--The cancellation 
     of the PRTV aircraft drives the requirement to retrofit the

[[Page H6278]]

     EMD aircraft to a production configuration for dedicated 
     initial operational test and evaluation, which would have 
     been accomplished by the PRTVs.
       An additional $500M is required for EMD to fund for Out-of-
     Production parts associated with these aircraft due to the 
     lack of an active production program.
       Impact: With the EMD stretchout and above considerations 
     the total cost impact to the EMD program is $1.2B, which 
     breaks Congressionally mandated EMD cost cap of $18.8B.
       Delay to Initial Operating Capability (IOC)--F-22 IOC is 
     currently scheduled for December 2005, the change to the 
     production profile would delay IOC (stand up of the first F-
     22 squadron) to Dec 2007.
       Delay in IOC would force the Air Force to execute an F-15 
     Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) on one Fighter Wing (72 
     aircraft).

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute 
to my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think the question today is, what kind of 
Air Force do we want? If it is not the Air Force today, it is an Air 
Force 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now. That is what we are looking at.
  Our choice in this thing is tomorrow's Air Force needs to be 
stealthy, needs to be survivable, supportable, deployable, and lethal; 
and the future of that rests with the F-22.
  It is kind of hard, and I think there is nothing we can do but to 
hurt retention and morale by giving these kids a plane that is old. 
When they are flying 90-year-old bombers and 80-year-old tankers and 
30-year-old fighters, that is the worst thing we can do for retention 
and morale of people.
  We kind of have to laugh in a way, Mr. Chairman, because it was just 
a little while ago we were fighting this argument with the B-2 bomber. 
Do my colleagues remember that one? It cannot fly. The technology is 
wrong. It cannot fly in the rain. It will not do it.
  And then this last thing in Kosovo, what happened? It did it all. And 
then the same people who vetoed the bill, the same people who opposed 
it are now standing there with air crews with the B-2 behind them. 
Politicians are rushing to have their pictures taken with the B-2 that 
could not fly and could not work and made the same arguments.
  I think it is reasonable to go with the F-22. That is the future of 
the Air Force. Let us support that.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) my colleague, for purposes of a 
colloquy.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman well knows, the armed services have 
recently conducted a survey for the purpose of identifying which ships 
should be used as a centerpiece of the 12 Marine amphibious assault 
groups.
  A study was done comparing building an additional LHD as opposed to 
taking an LHD-8 and schlepping it. The study came back very much in 
favor of taking an LHD and putting turbines in the next version of it 
as opposed to schlepping it.
  I notice there were no funds in this bill for that, although the 
Senate has funded this program.
  My question to my colleague and I seek his assurance that, at the end 
of the day, when this bill comes back from conference committee, will 
there be funds for LHD-8 in the bill.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I can assure the gentleman that all of us 
in the subcommittee discussed this at great length. We know the 
importance to our national security. We know the importance to the 
Marine Corps. We will make every effort to bring back an LHD-8.
  I know the gentleman has been pushing this for a long time. And the 
same here as the F-22, it is a matter of money. We hope we can work it 
out, and we expect to have more money down the road.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. BARR of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. Chairman, that is one beautiful aircraft. But do not be deceived. 
That is one mean SOB when it comes to air superiority.
  That, my colleagues, is the only way the United States of America can 
maintain what has always been an essential pillar of our national 
security for so long as American men and women have been flying, and 
that is the F-22.
  But do not take my word for it. Take the Washington Post's word for 
it. We heard earlier, as referenced by the gentleman from Florida, do 
not take my word for it. Take the word of seven, count them, seven 
former Secretaries of Defense: Bill Perry, Cap Weinberger, Frank 
Carlucci, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Harold Brown, and James 
Schlesinger.
  All of these men, who have served their country under administrations 
on both sides of the aisle, have told us and told us very clearly, 
America must have the F-22 if it is to maintain air superiority.
  Over 200 years ago, a gentleman universally recognized as one of the 
great military generals of all time, George Washington, said, ``To be 
prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving 
peace.''
  Do not just take his word for it. Go back 2,000 years before that to 
Mr. Sun Tzu who said, ``Victorious warriors win first and then go to 
war. It is defeated warriors who go to war first and then seek to 
win.''
  The way we prepare for war is to win war first and then go to war. 
The way we do that is what we did in the Gulf War, what we did in 
Kosovo; and that is to use air superiority.
  Before our men and women went to war in the air in Desert Storm or in 
Kosovo, they had already won. They had already won because the F-15 and 
the F-18 were superior to anything that the enemy had.
  That will prevail today. It will prevail tomorrow. But 5 years from 
now, it will not prevail. There are fighters being developed by a 
consortium of three countries that can defeat the F-15. The only way we 
can demand and contain air superiority in the future is to fund the F-
22. We need to do that.
  I appreciate the gentleman from California hearing these arguments 
out. I appreciate the support of Members on both sides of the aisle to 
fund the F-22.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, not by way of responding to the comments of the gentleman 
from Georgia or to others who have taken a position today in support of 
the F-22, but rather to make certain that all of our colleagues 
understand exactly how we got to this point preceding this debate.
  Earlier on in the year when I suddenly found myself with this 
chairmanship, my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) 
said to me, ``Jerry, you're going to shortly realize there's only so 
much money to go around, and it's our job to make the tough choices.'' 
In that connection as we looked over the whole array of requirements 
and needs of our national defense, it became very clear, in competition 
with other programs that are a Federal responsibility, that indeed this 
is a very challenging responsibility.
  Among those items that came before me in the early days of homework 
regarding this bill was the fact that we were on a line that would take 
us to three production lines of tactical fighter needs for the future. 
That involved the development further of the F-18E/F, the F-22, and the 
Joint Strike Fighter in the near future. It is the F-22 which we have 
discussed rather extensively today. If we follow through on the 
development of all three of those lines, we will eventually commit 
somewhere near $340 billion of expenditure. If we can, after 
reexamination, reduce that by just one aircraft line, we will save as 
much as $60 billion and at the end we will still have the finest 
tactical fighter force in the entire world. That is our entire 
objective.
  I can assure my colleagues that we are going to do everything 
necessary to ensure that no nation will be able to threaten us in terms 
of tactical air in the future.

[[Page H6279]]

  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, this has been a very difficult 
process. I want my colleagues to know how much I appreciate their 
serious cooperation regarding this amendment. Between now and the time 
that we go to conference with the Senate, we will be carefully 
evaluating that request for $3 billion for the tactical fighters in the 
future. Presently the bill provides for $1.2 billion for research and 
development. This funding will give us all the flexibility we need to 
have adequate discussions with the Senate. Between now and then, we are 
expecting serious responses from the Air Force and others as to how we 
can develop these programs and make sense out of our conflicting 
budgetary problems.
  And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, 
with the exception of yielding a minute to the gentleman from Georgia 
for purposes of a motion to withdraw.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, air power is critical for how 
we fight wars and respond to international incidents. Americans place 
an immeasurable value on life, and in war. Mr. Speaker, air dominance 
saves lives. Sweeping the skies clean of enemy air craft is essential 
for protecting our most vulnerable troops on the ground, and the pilots 
who fly follow-on strike missions. Air dominance cannot be guaranteed 
with aircraft on par with the enemy--it can only be achieved with 
superior capabilities. Mr. Speaker, the F-22 is the American guarantor 
of air supremacy.
  In scenarios where the United States need to respond to a rogue 
nation or terrorist group with a punitive strike, advanced fighters can 
deliver the message with precision. This is an important factor in 
lowering collateral damage and limiting the number of allied lives put 
at risk. As in Kosovo and the Gulf War, I believe air power will 
continue to be the primary player in how the United States responds to 
conflict.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot cut funding for F-22 procurement. Tactical 
fighters take 15 years to research, develop, and mature. If we want to 
maintain our air dominance in the future, say in the year 2010, we need 
to develop and test these air dominance fighters today. Currently, no 
other tactical air program combines the breakthrough technologies of 
integrated avionics, supercruise, thrust vectoring engines, and stealth 
into one aircraft. With the world-wide proliferation of SAMs, our 
pilots must take advantage of the F-22's supercruise, speed and stealth 
to complete their mission and return home safely. By investing in leap-
ahead technologies, we can save the lives of our future war fighters; 
we cannot invest in yesteryear technology.
  The F-22 is our top fighter program, no near term or long term 
substitute exists. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support full 
funding of the F-22 program.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for 
the F-22--the key to maintaining air dominance in the 21st Century.
  The F-22 is the first new U.S. air superiority fighter to be built in 
more than thirty years, and it is scheduled to join the Air Force 
inventory at a crucial time. Despite the ongoing upgrade of existing 
U.S. fighter aircraft, our tactical aircraft are facing increasingly 
sophisticated foreign fighters and more lethal air defense missiles.
  The F-22 is crucial to maintaining air superiority. History has shown 
us that air dominance is crucial to controlling the battlefield; it 
allows our forces and other aircraft to operate against our enemies 
with impunity. Proven success in attaining air superiority is the 
reason that no American soldier has died from enemy air attack in over 
forty years.
  We must continue development and acquisition of the F-22. Pausing 
this process is equal to cancellation of the program. Development of 
the aircraft system is on-track, and modern technology means that we 
can have a high-level of confidence in flight-tests, computer 
simulation, and other testing.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting funding for the F-22. 
It is important to our defense industry but most importantly it is 
crucial to the men and women who defend our nation.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, if allowed to stand, the decision 
to cut $1.8 billion in funding for the production of six F-22s would be 
a grave mistake. This cut in the F-22 program will adversely impact the 
security of this nation.
  Defense experts agree the F-22 performs a vital role in maintaining 
air superiority in future conflicts. As witnessed in the recent strikes 
in Kosovo and the Persian Gulf, air superiority provides an essential 
element in the protection of our nation and our interests abroad. 
Without the complete development of stealth technology and advanced 
avionics features, we put our soldiers at risk.
  The F-22 is America's next generation air superiority fighter, and 
has been developed to counter any future threats posed by foreign 
advanced surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). As we witnessed over the skies 
of Iraq, SAMs and other advanced fire-controlled radars pose a real 
threat to U.S. combat air fighters. The only real defense against those 
systems is the F-22 program, which has the ability to operate against 
multiple targets and use advanced avionics. As foreign countries 
continue to develop and purchase increasingly advanced air defense 
systems, our nation must continue advancement of our own fighters to 
preserve future air superiority.
  The goal of the F-22 program is to maintain the dominance of 
aerodynamic stealth performance and will enable the Department of 
Defense to continue its air superiority. Creating a ``pause'' in the 
program may in all likelihood, kill future production of this 
magnificent plan. Once the production is stopped, contracts will be 
broken as will the congressional cost caps. Since the early 1980s, 
Congress has continued to appropriate the necessary funding for the 
research and development of this plane, which has resulted in the 
investment of $19 billion in taxpayer funds and 13 years of 
development. As the F-22 program continues to exceed every technical 
and programmatic challenge, the U.S. Air Force continued to give its 
strong, explicit support for the projects continuation.

  From the start, the F-22 has been designed for minimal maintenance 
and will provide a reliable aircraft which is far superior than any 
other aircraft today. Compared to the F-15, which requires an average 
of 23 maintenance personnel, the F-22 will require a mere 15 personnel, 
which represents a substantial cost savings when calculated over the 
20-to-30 year life of an aircraft. Through the use of advanced 
technology, several benefits will be gained by developing a cost 
efficient design strategy, creating substantial savings and improving 
operational flexibility throughout the life of this program.
  Limiting this nation's defense in the 21st century to only one new 
fighter--the smaller, sub-sonic tactical Joint Strike Fighter, or JSF--
would put us in serious risk and force us to waste vital defense monies 
updating current aircraft (F-15 and F-18) that will be outdated and 
outperformed by foreign produced aircraft as soon as they are upgraded. 
While some suggest we rely on the future development of the Joint 
Strike Fighter (JSF) program, the JSF production is expected to begin 
around 2005 and operational service to begin around 2010. In March 
1999, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the total acquisition 
cost of these JSF aircraft over a 27-year period at some $223 billion. 
The estimates of the JSF's ultimate price may cost more than the F-22 
when the program finally reaches it programmatic maturity. The 
alternative JSF has been developed as a joint-service fighter/attack 
plane to complement--not replace the F-22. The JSF was never envisaged 
to take the place of the F-22 and it cannot be modified to do so.

  As other foreign countries begin to develop and acquire combat 
aircraft equal to our current fighters, the F-22 program is the best 
hope--the only hope--to beat the encroachment of advanced foreign 
arsenals. Countries such as Russia are developing advanced fighters for 
their foreign customers such as Syria, China and India. The F-15 began 
service over 25 years ago, and when the F-22 becomes operational in 
FY06, the F-15 will average 26 years of service. The F-15's flight 
characteristics are well known, making it even more susceptible to the 
next generation of foreign missiles and fighters.
  The history of warfare is clear--whoever owns the sky and space above 
it will own the future. The F-22 is the only opportunity our nation has 
to ensure America's military continues to control the sky for this 
century and the 21st century. There is no other tactical combat 
aircraft in service today that has similar capacity to successfully 
operate amid our growing future foreign threats.
  I urge the House to re-consider supporting such a defense initiative 
which will adversely affect future conflict capability and would put 
our nation's air superiority in jeopardy. We must continue to guarantee 
air superiority through the continued support and funding of the F-22 
program. There is no other American aircraft that can offer the 
insurance and protection our soldiers and their families desperately 
need.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw amendment No. 4.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House, the amendment is 
withdrawn.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lewis of California:
       On page 8, line 20, after the word ``facilities'', add the 
     following proviso:

[[Page H6280]]

       ``: Provided, That of the funds made available under this 
     heading, $7,000,000 shall only be available to the Secretary 
     of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, only for 
     demolition and removal of facilities, buildings, and 
     structures used at MOTBY (a Military Traffic Management 
     Command facility)''.
       On page 9, line 7, after the word ``Fund'' add the 
     following proviso:
       ``: Provided, That of the funds available under this 
     heading, $300,000 shall be available only for site design and 
     planning, and materials and equipment acquisition for the 
     Maritime Fire Training Center at MERTS''.
       On page 10, line 6, delete ``$11,401,733,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$11,402,733,000''.
       On page 11, line 25, after ``tractors'' at the end of line 
     25, add the following proviso:
       ``: Provided further, That of the amounts provided under 
     this heading, $6,300,000 is available only for the Department 
     of Defense STARBASE program''.
       On page 32, line 7, delete ``$6,964,227,000`` and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$6,958,227,000''.
       On page 32, line 8, after ``2002'' insert the following new 
     proviso:
       ``: Provided, That of the amounts provided under this 
     heading, $82,363,000 shall be available only for procurement 
     of the 60K A/C Loader program: Provided further, That of the 
     amounts provided under this heading, $179,339,000 is 
     available only for the Base Information Infrastructure 
     program''.
       On page 36, line 10, delete ``$8,930,149,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$8,935,149,000''.
       On page 37, line 12, after the word ``proviso'', insert the 
     following proviso:
       ``: Provided further, That of the amounts provided under 
     this heading, $5,000,000 is only for a technology insertion 
     program, to be carried out by a federally funded research and 
     development center and other units it affiliates with, to 
     demonstrate the cost savings and efficiency benefits of 
     applying commercially available software and information 
     technology to the manufacturing lines of small defense 
     firms''.
       On page 83, line 23, section 8071, insert after ``a State'' 
     the following:
       ``(as defined in section 381(d) of title 10, United States 
     Code).''
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section.
       ``Sec.  . None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to transfer to any nongovernmental entity ammunition 
     held by the Department of Defense that has a center-fire 
     cartridge and a United States military nomenclature 
     designation of ``armor penetrator'', ``armor piercing (AP)'', 
     ``armor piercing incendiary (API)'', or ``armor-piercing 
     incendiary-tracer (API-T)''.''

  Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer a manager's amendment 
on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). 
As I mentioned, this has been cleared on both sides, and I thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania for his cooperation.
  Mr. MURTHA. We have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment be 
adopted.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the remainder of the bill, through page 138, line 23, be considered as 
read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill is as follows:

                                TITLE V

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For the Defense Working Capital Funds; $90,344,000: 
     Provided, That during fiscal year 2000, funds in the Defense 
     Working Capital Funds may be used for the purchase of not to 
     exceed 295 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only for 
     the Defense Security Service.

                     National Defense Sealift Fund

       For National Defense Sealift Fund programs, projects, and 
     activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve 
     Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship 
     Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744); $729,700,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That none of the 
     funds provided in this paragraph shall be used to award a new 
     contract that provides for the acquisition of any of the 
     following major components unless such components are 
     manufactured in the United States: auxiliary equipment, 
     including pumps, for all shipboard services; propulsion 
     system components (that is; engines, reduction gears, and 
     propellers); shipboard cranes; and spreaders for shipboard 
     cranes: Provided further, That the exercise of an option in a 
     contract awarded through the obligation of previously 
     appropriated funds shall not be considered to be the award of 
     a new contract: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     military department responsible for such procurement may 
     waive the restrictions in the first proviso on a case-by-case 
     basis by certifying in writing to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     that adequate domestic supplies are not available to meet 
     Department of Defense requirements on a timely basis and that 
     such an acquisition must be made in order to acquire 
     capability for national security purposes.

                                TITLE VI

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, for medical and 
     health care programs of the Department of Defense, as 
     authorized by law; $11,078,417,000, of which $10,471,447,000 
     shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which not to 
     exceed 2 per centum shall remain available until September 
     30, 2001; of which $356,970,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2002, shall be for 
     Procurement; and of which $250,000,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2000, shall be for 
     Research, development, test and evaluation: Provided, That of 
     the amounts made available under this heading for Research, 
     development, test and evaluation, $175,000,000 shall be made 
     available only for the Army peer-reviewed breast cancer 
     research program and $75,000,000 shall be made available only 
     for the Army peer-reviewed prostate cancer research program.

            Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical 
     agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 
     1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other 
     chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical 
     weapon stockpile; $781,000,000, of which $492,000,000 shall 
     be for Operation and maintenance, $116,000,000 shall be for 
     Procurement to remain available until September 30, 2002, and 
     $173,000,000 shall be for Research, development, test and 
     evaluation to remain available until September 30, 2001: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding 10 U.S.C. 2215, of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, $75,303,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     ``Defense Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program'' 
     account by October 31, 1999, to provide off-post emergency 
     response and preparedness assistance to the communities 
     surrounding the eight continental United States chemical 
     agent storage and disposal sites; of which $32,209,000 shall 
     be derived from Operation and maintenance, and $43,094,000 
     shall be derived from Procurement.

         Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the 
     Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense for military personnel 
     of the reserve components serving under the provisions of 
     title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for Operation and 
     maintenance; for Procurement; and for Research, development, 
     test and evaluation; $883,700,000: Provided, That of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading, $42,800,000 is hereby 
     transferred to appropriations available for ``Military 
     Construction, Air Force'' for fiscal year 2000, and the 
     transferred funds shall be available for construction at 
     forward operating locations in the area of responsibility of 
     the United States Southern Command: Provided further, That 
     the funds appropriated under this heading shall be available 
     for obligation for the same time period and for the same 
     purpose as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided 
     further, That the transfer authority provided under this 
     heading is in addition to any transfer authority contained 
     elsewhere in this Act.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended; $140,844,000, of which 
     $138,744,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which 
     not to exceed $700,000 is available for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made 
     on the Inspector General's certificate of necessity for 
     confidential military purposes; and of which $2,100,000 to 
     remain available until September 30, 2002, shall be for 
     Procurement.

                               TITLE VII

                            RELATED AGENCIES

   Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund

       For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement 
     and Disability System Fund, to maintain proper funding level 
     for continuing the operation of the Central Intelligence 
     Agency Retirement and Disability System; $209,100,000.

[[Page H6281]]

               Intelligence Community Management Account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community 
     Management Account; $144,415,000, of which $34,923,000 for 
     the Advanced Research and Development Committee shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2001: Provided, That of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading, $27,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Department of Justice for the National 
     Drug Intelligence Center to support the Department of 
     Defense's counter-drug intelligence responsibilities, and of 
     the said amount, $1,500,000 for Procurement shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2002, and $1,000,000 for 
     Research, development, test and evaluation shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2001.

Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental 
                            Restoration Fund

       For payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, 
     and Environmental Restoration Fund, as authorized by law; 
     $15,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                 National Security Education Trust Fund

       For the purposes of title VIII of Public Law 102-183, 
     $8,000,000, to be derived from the National Security 
     Education Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.

                               TITLE VIII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 8002. During the current fiscal year, provisions of 
     law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment 
     of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall not 
     apply to personnel of the Department of Defense: Provided, 
     That salary increases granted to direct and indirect hire 
     foreign national employees of the Department of Defense 
     funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess of the 
     percentage increase authorized by law for civilian employees 
     of the Department of Defense whose pay is computed under the 
     provisions of section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, or 
     at a rate in excess of the percentage increase provided by 
     the appropriate host nation to its own employees, whichever 
     is higher: Provided further, That this section shall not 
     apply to Department of Defense foreign service national 
     employees serving at United States diplomatic missions whose 
     pay is set by the Department of State under the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980: Provided further, That the limitations 
     of this provision shall not apply to foreign national 
     employees of the Department of Defense in the Republic of 
     Turkey.
       Sec. 8003. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 8004. No more than 20 per centum of the appropriations 
     in this Act which are limited for obligation during the 
     current fiscal year shall be obligated during the last 2 
     months of the fiscal year: Provided, That this section shall 
     not apply to obligations for support of active duty training 
     of reserve components or summer camp training of the Reserve 
     Officers' Training Corps.


                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense 
     that such action is necessary in the national interest, he 
     may, with the approval of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, transfer not to exceed $2,000,000,000 of working 
     capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made 
     available in this Act to the Department of Defense for 
     military functions (except military construction) between 
     such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to 
     be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and 
     for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to 
     which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer 
     may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on 
     unforeseen military requirements, than those for which 
     originally appropriated and in no case where the item for 
     which funds are requested has been denied by Congress: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify 
     the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this 
     authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided 
     further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available to prepare or present a request to the Committees 
     on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for 
     higher priority items, based on unforeseen military 
     requirements, than those for which originally appropriated 
     and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is 
     requested has been denied by the Congress: Provided further, 
     That the Department of the Army, Department of the Air Force, 
     Defense-Wide Agencies, and the Office of the Secretary of 
     Defense may not reprogram funds within any appropriation in 
     title III or IV of this or prior annual Department of Defense 
     Acts under the authority of the Department of Defense 
     Financial Management Regulation without prior written 
     approval from the Appropriations Committees of Congress.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8006. During the current fiscal year, cash balances in 
     working capital funds of the Department of Defense 
     established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United 
     States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are 
     necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from 
     such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such 
     funds: Provided further, That transfers may be made between 
     working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency 
     Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation and the ``Operation and 
     Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such amounts as may 
     be determined by the Secretary of Defense, with the approval 
     of the Office of Management and Budget, except that such 
     transfers may not be made unless the Secretary of Defense has 
     notified the Congress of the proposed transfer. Except in 
     amounts equal to the amounts appropriated to working capital 
     funds in this Act, no obligations may be made against a 
     working capital fund to procure or increase the value of war 
     reserve material inventory, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     has notified the Congress prior to any such obligation.
       Sec. 8007. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used 
     to initiate a special access program without prior 
     notification 30 calendar days in session in advance to the 
     congressional defense committees.
       Sec. 8008. None of the funds provided in this or any other 
     Act hereafter shall be available to initiate: (1) a multiyear 
     contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in 
     excess of $20,000,000 in any one year of the contract or that 
     includes an unfunded contingent liability in excess of 
     $20,000,000; or (2) a contract for advance procurement 
     leading to a multiyear contract that employs economic order 
     quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 in any one 
     year; or (3) a contract for any systems or component thereof 
     if the value of the multiyear contract would exceed 
     $100,000,000: Provided, That the limitations in the preceding 
     provisos of this section do not apply to multiyear contracts 
     awarded prior to the date of enactment of this Act or to 
     multiyear contracts for which authority is specifically 
     provided in subsequent defense authorization acts and 
     appropriation acts: Provided further, That no funds in this 
     or any other Act may be used to initiate, expand, or extend a 
     multiyear contract unless the Secretary of Defense has 
     specifically notified the congressional defense committees in 
     writing thirty days in advance of contract award that such a 
     contract is in the national interest: Provided further, That 
     no multiyear contract may be terminated without ten day prior 
     notification to the congressional defense committees: 
     Provided further, That the execution of multiyear authority 
     shall require the use of a present value analysis to 
     determine lowest cost compared to an annual procurement.
       Sec. 8009. Within the funds appropriated for the operation 
     and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby 
     appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United 
     States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs 
     under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds 
     may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance 
     costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to 
     authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and these obligations shall be reported 
     to Congress on September 30 of each year: Provided, That 
     funds available for operation and maintenance shall be 
     available for providing humanitarian and similar assistance 
     by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust Territories of the 
     Pacific Islands and freely associated states of Micronesia, 
     pursuant to the Compact of Free Association as authorized by 
     Public Law 99-239: Provided further, That upon a 
     determination by the Secretary of the Army that such action 
     is beneficial for graduate medical education programs 
     conducted at Army medical facilities located in Hawaii, the 
     Secretary of the Army may authorize the provision of medical 
     services at such facilities and transportation to such 
     facilities, on a nonreimbursable basis, for civilian patients 
     from American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 
     Micronesia, Palau, and Guam.
       Sec. 8010. (a) During fiscal year 2000, the civilian 
     personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on 
     the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such 
     personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any 
     constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the 
     number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day 
     of such fiscal year.
       (b) The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2001 Department of 
     Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were 
     effective with regard to fiscal year 2001.
       (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to 
     military (civilian) technicians.
       Sec. 8011. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds made available by this Act shall be used by the 
     Department of Defense to exceed, outside the 50 United 
     States, its territories, and the District of Columbia, 
     125,000 civilian workyears: Provided, That workyears shall be 
     applied as defined in the Federal Personnel Manual: Provided 
     further, That workyears expended in dependent student hiring 
     programs for disadvantaged youths shall not be included in 
     this workyear limitation.
       Sec. 8012. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in any way, directly

[[Page H6282]]

     or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any 
     legislation or appropriation matters pending before the 
     Congress.
       Sec. 8013. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     shall be used to make contributions to the Department of 
     Defense Education Benefits Fund pursuant to section 2006(g) 
     of title 10, United States Code, representing the normal cost 
     for future benefits under section 3015(c) of title 38, United 
     States Code, for any member of the armed services who, on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, enlists in the 
     armed services for a period of active duty of less than three 
     years, nor shall any amounts representing the normal cost of 
     such future benefits be transferred from the Fund by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs pursuant to section 2006(d) of title 10, United 
     States Code; nor shall the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pay 
     such benefits to any such member: Provided, That these 
     limitations shall not apply to members in combat arms skills 
     or to members who enlist in the armed services on or after 
     July 1, 1989, under a program continued or established by the 
     Secretary of Defense in fiscal year 1991 to test the cost-
     effective use of special recruiting incentives involving not 
     more than nineteen noncombat arms skills approved in advance 
     by the Secretary of Defense: Provided further, That this 
     subsection applies only to active components of the Army.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
     available for the basic pay and allowances of any member of 
     the Army participating as a full-time student and receiving 
     benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from the 
     Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when time spent 
     as a full-time student is credited toward completion of a 
     service commitment: Provided, That this subsection shall not 
     apply to those members who have reenlisted with this option 
     prior to October 1, 1987: Provided further, That this 
     subsection applies only to active components of the Army.
       Sec. 8014. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to convert to contractor performance an activity 
     or function of the Department of Defense that, on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by more 
     than ten Department of Defense civilian employees until a 
     most efficient and cost-effective organization analysis is 
     completed on such activity or function and certification of 
     the analysis is made to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate: Provided, That 
     this section and subsections (a), (b), and (c) of 10 U.S.C. 
     2461 shall not apply to a commercial or industrial type 
     function of the Department of Defense that: (1) is included 
     on the procurement list established pursuant to section 2 of 
     the Act of June 25, 1938 (41 U.S.C. 47), popularly referred 
     to as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act; (2) is planned to be 
     converted to performance by a qualified nonprofit agency for 
     the blind or by a qualified nonprofit agency for other 
     severely handicapped individuals in accordance with that Act; 
     or (3) is planned to be converted to performance by a 
     qualified firm under 51 per centum Native American ownership.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8015. Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for 
     the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be 
     transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act 
     solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege 
     Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to 
     section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2301 note), 
     as amended, under the authority of this provision or any 
     other transfer authority contained in this Act.
       Sec. 8016. None of the funds in this Act may be available 
     for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its 
     departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and 
     mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the 
     anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United 
     States from components which are substantially manufactured 
     in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this 
     section manufactured will include cutting, heat treating, 
     quality control, testing of chain and welding (including the 
     forging and shot blasting process): Provided further, That 
     for the purpose of this section substantially all of the 
     components of anchor and mooring chain shall be considered to 
     be produced or manufactured in the United States if the 
     aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured in 
     the United States exceeds the aggregate cost of the 
     components produced or manufactured outside the United 
     States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service 
     responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on 
     a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be 
     made in order to acquire capability for national security 
     purposes.
       Sec. 8017. None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
     Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) shall be available for the 
     reimbursement of any health care provider for inpatient 
     mental health service for care received when a patient is 
     referred to a provider of inpatient mental health care or 
     residential treatment care by a medical or health care 
     professional having an economic interest in the facility to 
     which the patient is referred: Provided, That this limitation 
     does not apply in the case of inpatient mental health 
     services provided under the program for the handicapped under 
     subsection (d) of section 1079 of title 10, United States 
     Code, provided as partial hospital care, or provided pursuant 
     to a waiver authorized by the Secretary of Defense because of 
     medical or psychological circumstances of the patient that 
     are confirmed by a health professional who is not a Federal 
     employee after a review, pursuant to rules prescribed by the 
     Secretary, which takes into account the appropriate level of 
     care for the patient, the intensity of services required by 
     the patient, and the availability of that care.
       Sec. 8018. Funds available in this Act may be used to 
     provide transportation for the next-of-kin of individuals who 
     have been prisoners of war or missing in action from the 
     Vietnam era to an annual meeting in the United States, under 
     such regulations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.
       Sec. 8019. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during the current fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense may, 
     by executive agreement, establish with host nation 
     governments in NATO member states a separate account into 
     which such residual value amounts negotiated in the return of 
     United States military installations in NATO member states 
     may be deposited, in the currency of the host nation, in lieu 
     of direct monetary transfers to the United States Treasury: 
     Provided, That such credits may be utilized only for the 
     construction of facilities to support United States military 
     forces in that host nation, or such real property maintenance 
     and base operating costs that are currently executed through 
     monetary transfers to such host nations: Provided further, 
     That the Department of Defense's budget submission for fiscal 
     year 2001 shall identify such sums anticipated in residual 
     value settlements, and identify such construction, real 
     property maintenance or base operating costs that shall be 
     funded by the host nation through such credits: Provided 
     further, That all military construction projects to be 
     executed from such accounts must be previously approved in a 
     prior Act of Congress: Provided further, That each such 
     executive agreement with a NATO member host nation shall be 
     reported to the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate 30 days prior to the conclusion and endorsement of any 
     such agreement established under this provision.
       Sec. 8020. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 
     Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, 
     .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols.
       Sec. 8021. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to 
     pay more than 50 per centum of an amount paid to any person 
     under section 308 of title 37, United States Code, in a lump 
     sum.
       Sec. 8022. No more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated 
     or made available in this Act shall be used during a single 
     fiscal year for any single relocation of an organization, 
     unit, activity or function of the Department of Defense into 
     or within the National Capital Region: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying in writing to the congressional 
     defense committees that such a relocation is required in the 
     best interest of the Government.
       Sec. 8023. A member of a reserve component whose unit or 
     whose residence is located in a State which is not contiguous 
     with another State is authorized to travel in a space 
     required status on aircraft of the Armed Forces between home 
     and place of inactive duty training, or place of duty in lieu 
     of unit training assembly, when there is no road or railroad 
     transportation (or combination of road and railroad 
     transportation between those locations): Provided, That a 
     member traveling in that status on a military aircraft 
     pursuant to the authority provided in this section is not 
     authorized to receive travel, transportation, or per diem 
     allowances in connection with that travel.
       Sec. 8024. (a) In addition to the funds provided elsewhere 
     in this Act, $8,000,000 is appropriated only for incentive 
     payments authorized by section 504 of the Indian Financing 
     Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544): Provided, That contractors 
     participating in the test program established by section 854 
     of Public Law 101-189 (15 U.S.C. 637 note) shall be eligible 
     for the program established by section 504 of the Indian 
     Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544).
       Sec. 8025. During the current fiscal year, funds 
     appropriated or otherwise available for any Federal agency, 
     the Congress, the judicial branch, or the District of 
     Columbia may be used for the pay, allowances, and benefits of 
     an employee as defined by section 2105 of title 5, United 
     States Code, or an individual employed by the government of 
     the District of Columbia, permanent or temporary indefinite, 
     who--
       (1) is a member of a Reserve component of the Armed Forces, 
     as described in section 10101 of title 10, United States 
     Code, or the National Guard, as described in section 101 of 
     title 32, United States Code;
       (2) performs, for the purpose of providing military aid to 
     enforce the law or providing assistance to civil authorities 
     in the protection or saving of life or property or prevention 
     of injury--

[[Page H6283]]

        (A) Federal service under sections 331, 332, 333, or 12406 
     of title 10, or other provision of law, as applicable; or
        (B) full-time military service for his or her State, the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a 
     territory of the United States; and
       (3) requests and is granted--
        (A) leave under the authority of this section; or
        (B) annual leave, which may be granted without regard to 
     the provisions of sections 5519 and 6323(b) of title 5, if 
     such employee is otherwise entitled to such annual leave:
     Provided, That any employee who requests leave under 
     subsection (3)(A) for service described in subsection (2) of 
     this section is entitled to such leave, subject to the 
     provisions of this section and of the last sentence of 
     section 6323(b) of title 5, and such leave shall be 
     considered leave under section 6323(b) of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       Sec. 8026. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to perform any cost study pursuant to the 
     provisions of OMB Circular A-76 if the study being performed 
     exceeds a period of 24 months after initiation of such study 
     with respect to a single function activity or 48 months after 
     initiation of such study for a multi-function activity.
       Sec. 8027. Funds appropriated by this Act for the American 
     Forces Information Service shall not be used for any national 
     or international political or psychological activities.
       Sec. 8028. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, the Secretary of Defense may adjust wage rates 
     for civilian employees hired for certain health care 
     occupations as authorized for the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs by section 7455 of title 38, United States Code.
       Sec. 8029. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to reduce or disestablish the 
     operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the 
     Air Force Reserve, if such action would reduce the WC-130 
     Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in 
     this Act.
       Sec. 8030. (a) Of the funds for the procurement of supplies 
     or services appropriated by this Act, qualified nonprofit 
     agencies for the blind or other severely handicapped shall be 
     afforded the maximum practicable opportunity to participate 
     as subcontractors and suppliers in the performance of 
     contracts let by the Department of Defense.
       (b) During the current fiscal year, a business concern 
     which has negotiated with a military service or defense 
     agency a subcontracting plan for the participation by small 
     business concerns pursuant to section 8(d) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) shall be given credit toward 
     meeting that subcontracting goal for any purchases made from 
     qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely 
     handicapped.
       (c) For the purpose of this section, the phrase ``qualified 
     nonprofit agency for the blind or other severely 
     handicapped'' means a nonprofit agency for the blind or other 
     severely handicapped that has been approved by the Committee 
     for the Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely 
     Handicapped under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
     48).
       Sec. 8031. During the current fiscal year, net receipts 
     pursuant to collections from third party payers pursuant to 
     section 1095 of title 10, United States Code, shall be made 
     available to the local facility of the uniformed services 
     responsible for the collections and shall be over and above 
     the facility's direct budget amount.
       Sec. 8032. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense is authorized to incur obligations of not to 
     exceed $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section 
     2350j(c) of title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of 
     receipt of contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait, 
     under that section: Provided, That upon receipt, such 
     contributions from the Government of Kuwait shall be credited 
     to the appropriations or fund which incurred such 
     obligations.
       Sec. 8033. Of the funds made available in this Act, not 
     less than $26,588,000 shall be available for the Civil Air 
     Patrol Corporation, of which $22,888,000 shall be available 
     for Civil Air Patrol Corporation operation and maintenance to 
     support readiness activities which includes $1,418,000 for 
     the Civil Air Patrol counterdrug program: Provided, That 
     funds identified for ``Civil Air Patrol'' under this section 
     are intended for and shall be for the exclusive use of the 
     Civil Air Patrol Corporation and not for the Air Force or any 
     unit thereof.
       Sec. 8034. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     are available to establish a new Department of Defense 
     (department) federally funded research and development center 
     (FFRDC), either as a new entity, or as a separate entity 
     administrated by an organization managing another FFRDC, or 
     as a nonprofit membership corporation consisting of a 
     consortium of other FFRDCs and other non-profit entities.
       (b) Limitation on Compensation--Federally Funded Research 
     and Development Center (FFRDC).--No member of a Board of 
     Directors, Trustees, Overseers, Advisory Group, Special 
     Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or any similar entity of a 
     defense FFRDC, and no paid consultant to any defense FFRDC, 
     except when acting in a technical advisory capacity, may be 
     compensated for his or her services as a member of such 
     entity, or as a paid consultant by more than one FFRDC in a 
     fiscal year: Provided, That a member of any such entity 
     referred to previously in this subsection shall be allowed 
     travel expenses and per diem as authorized under the Federal 
     Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in the performance of 
     membership duties.
       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds available to the department from any source during 
     fiscal year 2000 may be used by a defense FFRDC, through a 
     fee or other payment mechanism, for construction of new 
     buildings, for payment of cost sharing for projects funded by 
     government grants, for absorption of contract overruns, or 
     for certain charitable contributions, not to include employee 
     participation in community service and/or development.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the 
     funds available to the department during fiscal year 2000, 
     not more than 6,206 staff years of technical effort (staff 
     years) may be funded for defense FFRDCs: Provided, That of 
     the specific amount referred to previously in this 
     subsection, not more than 1,105 staff years may be funded for 
     the defense studies and analysis FFRDCs.
       (e) Within 60 days after the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report presenting the specific amounts 
     of staff years of technical effort to be allocated by the 
     department for each defense FFRDC during fiscal year 2000: 
     Provided, That, after the submission of the report required 
     by this subsection, the department may not reallocate more 
     than 5 per centum of an FFRDC's staff years among other 
     defense FFRDCs until 30 days after a detailed justification 
     for any such reallocation is submitted to the congressional 
     defense committees.
       (f ) The Secretary of Defense shall, with the submission of 
     the department's fiscal year 2001 budget request, submit a 
     report presenting the specific amounts of staff years of 
     technical effort to be allocated for each defense FFRDC 
     during that fiscal year.
       (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     reductions for advisory and assistance services contained in 
     this Act shall be applied to defense FFRDCs.
       Sec. 8035. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or 
     property under the control of the Department of Defense which 
     were not melted and rolled in the United States or Canada: 
     Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall apply to 
     any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American Society of 
     Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and Steel 
     Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     military department responsible for the procurement may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions 
     shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 8036. For the purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``congressional defense committees'' means the Armed Services 
     Committee of the House of Representatives, the Armed Services 
     Committee of the Senate, the Subcommittee on Defense of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the 
     Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives.
       Sec. 8037. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense may acquire the modification, depot maintenance 
     and repair of aircraft, vehicles and vessels as well as the 
     production of components and other Defense-related articles, 
     through competition between Department of Defense depot 
     maintenance activities and private firms: Provided, That the 
     Senior Acquisition Executive of the military department or 
     defense agency concerned, with power of delegation, shall 
     certify that successful bids include comparable estimates of 
     all direct and indirect costs for both public and private 
     bids: Provided further, That Office of Management and Budget 
     Circular A-76 shall not apply to competitions conducted under 
     this section.
       Sec. 8038. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after 
     consultation with the United States Trade Representative, 
     determines that a foreign country which is party to an 
     agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms 
     of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of 
     products produced in the United States that are covered by 
     the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the 
     Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with 
     respect to such types of products produced in that foreign 
     country.
       (2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any 
     reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding, 
     between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to 
     which the Secretary of Defense has prospectively waived the 
     Buy American Act for certain products in that country.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from 
     foreign entities in fiscal year 2000. Such report shall 
     separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the 
     Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any agreement 
     described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement Act of 
     1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international agreement 
     to which the United States is a party.

[[Page H6284]]

       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American 
     Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
     for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other 
     purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       Sec. 8039. Appropriations contained in this Act that remain 
     available at the end of the current fiscal year as a result 
     of energy cost savings realized by the Department of Defense 
     shall remain available for obligation for the next fiscal 
     year to the extent, and for the purposes, provided in section 
     2865 of title 10, United States Code.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8040. Amounts deposited during the current fiscal year 
     to the special account established under 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2) 
     and to the special account established under 10 U.S.C. 
     2667(d)(1) are appropriated and shall be available until 
     transferred by the Secretary of Defense to current applicable 
     appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense under 
     the terms and conditions specified by 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2)(A) 
     and (B) and 10 U.S.C. 2667(d)(1)(B), to be merged with and to 
     be available for the same time period and the same purposes 
     as the appropriation to which transferred.
       Sec. 8041. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense may be used to 
     reimburse a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces 
     who is not otherwise entitled to travel and transportation 
     allowances and who occupies transient government housing 
     while performing active duty for training or inactive duty 
     training: Provided, That such members may be provided lodging 
     in kind if transient government quarters are unavailable as 
     if the member was entitled to such allowances under 
     subsection (a) of section 404 of title 37, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That if lodging in kind is provided, 
     any authorized service charge or cost of such lodging may be 
     paid directly from funds appropriated for operation and 
     maintenance of the reserve component of the member concerned.
       Sec. 8042. The President shall include with each budget for 
     a fiscal year submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, materials that shall identify 
     clearly and separately the amounts requested in the budget 
     for appropriation for that fiscal year for salaries and 
     expenses related to administrative activities of the 
     Department of Defense, the military departments, and the 
     Defense agencies.
       Sec. 8043. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available for ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
     Activities, Defense'' may be obligated for the Young Marines 
     program.
       Sec. 8044. During the current fiscal year, amounts 
     contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military 
     Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section 
     2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available 
     until expended for the payments specified by section 
     2921(c)(2) of that Act.
       Sec. 8045. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act, not more than $119,200,000 shall be 
     available for payment of the operating costs of NATO 
     Headquarters: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may 
     waive this section for Department of Defense support provided 
     to NATO forces in and around the former Yugoslavia.
       Sec. 8046. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     which are available to the Department of Defense for 
     operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items 
     having an investment item unit cost of not more than 
     $100,000.
       Sec. 8047. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     appropriations or funds available to the Department of 
     Defense Working Capital Funds shall be used for the purchase 
     of an investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new 
     inventory item for sale or anticipated sale during the 
     current fiscal year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds if such an 
     item would not have been chargeable to the Department of 
     Defense Business Operations Fund during fiscal year 1994 and 
     if the purchase of such an investment item would be 
     chargeable during the current fiscal year to appropriations 
     made to the Department of Defense for procurement.
       (b) The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2001 Department of 
     Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified 
     as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation 
     contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed 
     fiscal year 2001 procurement appropriation and not in the 
     supply management business area or any other area or category 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds.
       Sec. 8048. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain 
     available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year, 
     except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for 
     Contingencies, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2001: Provided, That funds appropriated, transferred, or 
     otherwise credited to the Central Intelligence Agency Central 
     Services Working Capital Fund during this or any prior or 
     subsequent fiscal year shall remain available until expended.
       Sec. 8049. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence 
     Agency may be used for the design, development, and 
     deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program 
     intelligence communications and intelligence information 
     systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands, 
     and the component commands.
       Sec. 8050. Of the funds appropriated by the Department of 
     Defense under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', not less than $8,000,000 shall be made 
     available only for the mitigation of environmental impacts, 
     including training and technical assistance to tribes, 
     related administrative support, the gathering of information, 
     documenting of environmental damage, and developing a system 
     for prioritization of mitigation and cost to complete 
     estimates for mitigation, on Indian lands resulting from 
     Department of Defense activities.
       Sec. 8051. Amounts collected for the use of the facilities 
     of the National Science Center for Communications and 
     Electronics during the current fiscal year pursuant to 
     section 1459(g) of the Department of Defense Authorization 
     Act, 1986, and deposited to the special account established 
     under subsection 1459(g)(2) of that Act are appropriated and 
     shall be available until expended for the operation and 
     maintenance of the Center as provided for in subsection 
     1459(g)(2).
       Sec. 8052. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may 
     be used to fill the commander's position at any military 
     medical facility with a health care professional unless the 
     prospective candidate can demonstrate professional 
     administrative skills.
       Sec. 8053. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense 
     unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the 
     Buy American Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``Buy American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An 
     Act making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
     Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for 
     other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.).
       (b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person 
     has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription to any product sold in or 
     shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the 
     Secretary shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f 
     of title 10, United States Code, whether the person should be 
     debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
       (c) In the case of any equipment or products purchased with 
     appropriations provided under this Act, it is the sense of 
     the Congress that any entity of the Department of Defense, in 
     expending the appropriation, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products, provided that American-made equipment 
     and products are cost-competitive, quality-competitive, and 
     available in a timely fashion.
       Sec. 8054. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available for a contract for studies, analysis, or 
     consulting services entered into without competition on the 
     basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the 
     activity responsible for the procurement determines--
       (1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one 
     source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work;
       (2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an 
     unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or 
     technological promise, represents the product of original 
     thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source; or
       (3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of 
     unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a 
     specific concern, or to insure that a new product or idea of 
     a specific concern is given financial support:
     Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to contracts 
     in an amount of less than $25,000, contracts related to 
     improvements of equipment that is in development or 
     production, or contracts as to which a civilian official of 
     the Department of Defense, who has been confirmed by the 
     Senate, determines that the award of such contract is in the 
     interest of the national defense.
       Sec. 8055. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and 
     (c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used--
       (1) to establish a field operating agency; or
       (2) to pay the basic pay of a member of the Armed Forces or 
     civilian employee of the department who is transferred or 
     reassigned from a headquarters activity if the member or 
     employee's place of duty remains at the location of that 
     headquarters.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense or Secretary of a military 
     department may waive the limitations in subsection (a), on a 
     case-by-case basis, if the Secretary determines, and 
     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate that the granting of the waiver 
     will reduce the personnel requirements or the financial 
     requirements of the department.
       (c) This section does not apply to field operating agencies 
     funded within the National Foreign Intelligence Program.
       Sec. 8056. Funds appropriated by this Act and in Public Law 
     105-277, or made available by the transfer of funds in this 
     Act and in Public Law 105-277 for intelligence activities are 
     deemed to be specifically authorized by the Congress for 
     purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 
     (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 2000 until the enactment 
     of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.

[[Page H6285]]

       Sec. 8057. Notwithstanding section 303 of Public Law 96-487 
     or any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Navy is 
     authorized to lease real and personal property at Naval Air 
     Facility, Adak, Alaska, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2667(f ), for 
     commercial, industrial or other purposes: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     the Navy may remove hazardous materials from facilities, 
     buildings, and structures at Adak, Alaska, and may demolish 
     or otherwise dispose of such facilities, buildings, and 
     structures: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, not more than $4,650,000 of the funds 
     provided under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'' in title II of this Act shall be available to the 
     Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
     only for demolition and removal of facilities, buildings, and 
     structures formerly used as a District Headquarters Office by 
     the Corps of Engineers (Northwest Division, CENWW, Washington 
     State), as described in the study conducted regarding the 
     headquarters pursuant to the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1992 (Public Law 102-104; 105 Stat. 511).


                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 8058. Of the funds provided in Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby rescinded 
     as of the date of the enactment of this Act, or October 1, 
     1999, whichever is later, from the following accounts and 
     programs in the specified amounts:
       ``Other Procurement, Navy, 1998/2000'', $6,384,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 1998/2000'', 
     $26,100,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 1998/2000'', 
     $100,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Army, 1999/2001'', $20,700,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy, 1999/2001'', $62,500,000;
       ``Weapons Procurement, Navy, 1999/2001'', $8,000,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1999/2003'':
       New Attack Submarine, $35,000,000;
       CVN-69, $11,400,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Navy, 1999/2001'', $16,353,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 1999/2001'', 
     $81,229,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 1999/2001'', 
     $155,500,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 1999/
     2000'', $16,400,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 
     1999/2000'', $49,921,000; and
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, 
     1999/2000'', $23,500,000.
       Sec. 8059. None of the funds available in this Act may be 
     used to reduce the authorized positions for military 
     (civilian) technicians of the National Guard, the Air 
     National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the 
     purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian 
     personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military 
     (civilian) technicians, unless such reductions are a direct 
     result of a reduction in military force structure.
       Sec. 8060. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea 
     unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
       Sec. 8061. During the current fiscal year, funds 
     appropriated in this Act are available to compensate members 
     of the National Guard for duty performed pursuant to a plan 
     submitted by a Governor of a State and approved by the 
     Secretary of Defense under section 112 of title 32, United 
     States Code: Provided, That during the performance of such 
     duty, the members of the National Guard shall be under State 
     command and control: Provided further, That such duty shall 
     be treated as full-time National Guard duty for purposes of 
     sections 12602(a)(2) and (b)(2) of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 8062. Funds appropriated in this Act for operation and 
     maintenance of the Military Departments, Unified and 
     Specified Commands and Defense Agencies shall be available 
     for reimbursement of pay, allowances and other expenses which 
     would otherwise be incurred against appropriations for the 
     National Guard and Reserve when members of the National Guard 
     and Reserve provide intelligence or counterintelligence 
     support to Unified Commands, Defense Agencies and Joint 
     Intelligence Activities, including the activities and 
     programs included within the National Foreign Intelligence 
     Program (NFIP), the Joint Military Intelligence Program 
     (JMIP), and the Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities 
     (TIARA) aggregate: Provided, That nothing in this section 
     authorizes deviation from established Reserve and National 
     Guard personnel and training procedures.
       Sec. 8063. During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds appropriated in this Act may be used to reduce the 
     civilian medical and medical support personnel assigned to 
     military treatment facilities below the September 30, 1999 
     level: Provided, That the Service Surgeons General may waive 
     this section by certifying to the congressional defense 
     committees that the beneficiary population is declining in 
     some catchment areas and civilian strength reductions may be 
     consistent with responsible resource stewardship and 
     capitation-based budgeting.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8064. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     may be transferred to or obligated from the Pentagon 
     Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund, unless the Secretary 
     of Defense certifies that the total cost for the planning, 
     design, construction and installation of equipment for the 
     renovation of the Pentagon Reservation will not exceed 
     $1,222,000,000.
       (b) The Secretary shall, in conjunction with the Pentagon 
     Renovation, design and construct secure secretarial offices 
     and support facilities and security-related changes to the 
     subway entrance at the Pentagon Reservation.
       Sec. 8065. (a) None of the funds available to the 
     Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug 
     interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to 
     any other department or agency of the United States except as 
     specifically provided in an appropriations law.
       (b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence 
     Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
     drug activities may be transferred to any other department or 
     agency of the United States except as specifically provided 
     in an appropriations law.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8066. Appropriations available in this Act under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' for 
     increasing energy and water efficiency in Federal buildings 
     may, during their period of availability, be transferred to 
     other appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense 
     for projects related to increasing energy and water 
     efficiency, to be merged with and to be available for the 
     same general purposes, and for the same time period, as the 
     appropriation or fund to which transferred.
       Sec. 8067. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used for the procurement of ball and roller bearings other 
     than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic 
     origin: Provided, That the Secretary of the military 
     department responsible for such procurement may waive this 
     restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes.
       Sec. 8068. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made 
     available to provide transportation of medical supplies and 
     equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to American Samoa: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made 
     available to provide transportation of medical supplies and 
     equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to the Indian Health 
     Service when it is in conjunction with a civil-military 
     project.
       Sec. 8069. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the 
     United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to 
     the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes that is not available from United States 
     manufacturers.
       Sec. 8070. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Naval shipyards of the United States shall be eligible to 
     participate in any manufacturing extension program financed 
     by funds appropriated in this or any other Act.
       Sec. 8071. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each 
     contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the 
     current fiscal year for construction or service performed in 
     whole or in part in a State which is not contiguous with 
     another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the 
     national average rate of unemployment as determined by the 
     Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the 
     contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that 
     portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous 
     with another State, individuals who are residents of such 
     State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or 
     would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive the 
     requirements of this section, on a case-by-case basis, in the 
     interest of national security.
       Sec. 8072. During the current fiscal year, the Army shall 
     use the former George Air Force Base as the airhead for the 
     National Training Center at Fort Irwin: Provided, That none 
     of the funds in this Act shall be obligated or expended to 
     transport Army personnel into Edwards Air Force Base for 
     training rotations at the National Training Center.
       Sec. 8073. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit, on a 
     quarterly basis, a report to the congressional defense 
     committees, the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate setting forth all costs (including 
     incremental costs) incurred by the Department of Defense 
     during the preceding quarter in implementing or supporting 
     resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, including 
     any such resolution calling for international sanctions, 
     international peacekeeping operations, and humanitarian 
     missions undertaken by the Department of Defense. The 
     quarterly report shall include an aggregate of all such 
     Department of Defense costs by operation or mission.

[[Page H6286]]

       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall detail in the quarterly 
     reports all efforts made to seek credit against past United 
     Nations expenditures and all efforts made to seek 
     compensation from the United Nations for costs incurred by 
     the Department of Defense in implementing and supporting 
     United Nations activities.
       Sec. 8074. (a) Limitation on Transfer of Defense Articles 
     and Services.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     none of the funds available to the Department of Defense for 
     the current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to 
     transfer to another nation or an international organization 
     any defense articles or services (other than intelligence 
     services) for use in the activities described in subsection 
     (b) unless the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of 
     the Senate are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       (b) Covered Activities.--This section applies to--
       (1) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement 
     operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of 
     the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United 
     Nations Security Council resolution; and
       (2) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
     enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.
       (c) Required Notice.--A notice under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services 
     to be transferred.
       (2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or 
     services to be transferred.
       (3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or 
     supplies--
       (A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of 
     all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve 
     components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be 
     transferred have been met; and
       (B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be 
     transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the 
     President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
       Sec. 8075. To the extent authorized by subchapter VI of 
     chapter 148 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of 
     Defense may issue loan guarantees in support of United States 
     defense exports not otherwise provided for: Provided, That 
     the total contingent liability of the United States for 
     guarantees issued under the authority of this section may not 
     exceed $15,000,000,000: Provided further, That the exposure 
     fees charged and collected by the Secretary for each 
     guarantee, shall be paid by the country involved and shall 
     not be financed as part of a loan guaranteed by the United 
     States: Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide 
     quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations, Armed 
     Services and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services and 
     International Relations in the House of Representatives on 
     the implementation of this program: Provided further, That 
     amounts charged for administrative fees and deposited to the 
     special account provided for under section 2540c(d) of title 
     10, shall be available for paying the costs of administrative 
     expenses of the Department of Defense that are attributable 
     to the loan guarantee program under subchapter VI of chapter 
     148 of title 10, United States Code.
       Sec. 8076. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense shall be obligated or expended to make a financial 
     contribution to the United Nations for the cost of an United 
     Nations peacekeeping activity (whether pursuant to assessment 
     or a voluntary contribution) or for payment of any United 
     States arrearage to the United Nations.
       Sec. 8077. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to pay 
     a contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense 
     for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an employee 
     when--
       (1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of 
     the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
       (2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated 
     with a business combination.
       Sec. 8078. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in this Act may be used to transport or 
     provide for the transportation of chemical munitions or 
     agents to the Johnston Atoll for the purpose of storing or 
     demilitarizing such munitions or agents.
       (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     any obsolete World War II chemical munition or agent of the 
     United States found in the World War II Pacific Theater of 
     Operations.
       (c) The President may suspend the application of subsection 
     (a) during a period of war in which the United States is a 
     party.
       Sec. 8079. None of the funds provided in title II of this 
     Act for ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction'' may be 
     obligated or expended to finance housing for any individual 
     who was a member of the military forces of the Soviet Union 
     or for any individual who is or was a member of the military 
     forces of the Russian Federation.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8080. During the current fiscal year, no more than 
     $5,000,000 of appropriations made in this Act under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' may be 
     transferred to appropriations available for the pay of 
     military personnel, to be merged with, and to be available 
     for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred, to be used in support of such personnel in 
     connection with support and services for eligible 
     organizations and activities outside the Department of 
     Defense pursuant to section 2012 of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 8081. For purposes of section 1553(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made in 
     this Act under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' shall be considered to be for the same purpose as any 
     subdivision under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' appropriations in any prior year, and the 1 percent 
     limitation shall apply to the total amount of the 
     appropriation.
       Sec. 8082. During the current fiscal year, in the case of 
     an appropriation account of the Department of Defense for 
     which the period of availability for obligation has expired 
     or which has closed under the provisions of section 1552 of 
     title 31, United States Code, and which has a negative 
     unliquidated or unexpended balance, an obligation or an 
     adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current 
     appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or 
     closed account if--
       (1) the obligation would have been properly chargeable 
     (except as to amount) to the expired or closed account before 
     the end of the period of availability or closing of that 
     account;
       (2) the obligation is not otherwise properly chargeable to 
     any current appropriation account of the Department of 
     Defense; and
       (3) in the case of an expired account, the obligation is 
     not chargeable to a current appropriation of the Department 
     of Defense under the provisions of section 1405(b)(8) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, 
     Public Law 101-510, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1551 note): 
     Provided, That in the case of an expired account, if 
     subsequent review or investigation discloses that there was 
     not in fact a negative unliquidated or unexpended balance in 
     the account, any charge to a current account under the 
     authority of this section shall be reversed and recorded 
     against the expired account: Provided further, That the total 
     amount charged to a current appropriation under this section 
     may not exceed an amount equal to 1 percent of the total 
     appropriation for that account.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8083. Upon enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall make the following transfers of funds: 
     Provided, That the amounts transferred shall be available for 
     the same purposes as the appropriations to which transferred, 
     and for the same time period as the appropriation from which 
     transferred: Provided further, That the amounts shall be 
     transferred between the following appropriations in the 
     amount specified:
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1988/2001'':
       SSN-688 attack submarine program, $6,585,000;
       CG-47 cruiser program, $12,100,000;
       Aircraft carrier service life extension program, $202,000;
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $2,311,000;
       LSD-41 cargo variant ship program, $566,000;
       T-AO fleet oiler program, $3,494,000;
       AO conversion program, $133,000;
       Craft, outfitting, and post delivery, $1,688,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1995/2001'':
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $27,079,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1989/2000'':
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $13,200,000;
       Aircraft carrier service life extension program, $186,000;
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $3,621,000;
       LCAC landing craft, air cushioned program, $1,313,000;
       T-AO fleet oiler program, $258,000;
       AOE combat support ship program, $1,078,000;
       AO conversion program, $881,000;
       T-AGOS drug interdiction conversion, $407,000;
       Outfitting and post delivery, $219,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1996/2000'':
       LPD-17 amphibious transport dock ship, $21,163,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1990/2002'':
       SSN-688 attack submarine program, $5,606,000;
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $6,000,000;
       ENTERPRISE refueling/modernization program, $2,306,000;
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $183,000;
       LSD-41 dock landing ship cargo variant program, $501,000;
       LCAC landing craft, air cushioned program, $345,000;
       MCM mine countermeasures program, $1,369,000;
       Moored training ship demonstration program, $1,906,000;
       Oceanographic ship program, $1,296,000;
       AOE combat support ship program, $4,086,000;
       AO conversion program, $143,000;
       Craft, outfitting, post delivery, and ship special support 
     equipment, $1,209,000;

[[Page H6287]]

       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1990/2002'':
       T-AGOS surveillance ship program, $5,000,000;
       Coast Guard icebreaker program, $8,153,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1996/2002'':
       LPD-17 amphibious transport dock ship, $7,192,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1998/2002'':
       CVN refuelings, $4,605,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1991/2001'':
       SSN-21(AP) attack submarine program, $1,614,000;
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $5,647,000;
       LSD-41 dock landing ship cargo variant program, $1,389,000;
       LCAC landing craft, air cushioned program, $330,000;
       AOE combat support ship program, $1,435,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1998/2001'':
       CVN refuelings, $10,415,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1992/2001'':
       SSN-21 attack submarine program, $11,983,000;
       Craft, outfitting, post delivery, and DBOF transfer, 
     $836,000;
       Escalation, $5,378,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1998/2001'':
       CVN refuelings, $18,197,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1993/2002'':
       Carrier replacement program (AP), $30,332,000;
       LSD-41 cargo variant ship program, $676,000;
       AOE combat support ship program, $2,066,000;
       Craft, outfitting, post delivery, and first destination 
     transportation, and inflation adjustments, $2,127,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1998/2002'':
       CVN refuelings, $29,844,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1999/2002'':
       Craft, outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and first 
     destination transportation, $5,357,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1994/2003'':
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $23,900,000;
       Oceanographic ship program, $9,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1994/2003'':
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $18,349,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1995/1999'':
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $5,383,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1996/2000'':
       LPD-17 amphibious transport dock ship, $168,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1999/2003'':
       Craft, outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and first 
     destination transportation, $9,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1996/2000'':
       SSN-21 attack submarine program, $10,100,000;
       LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $7,100,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1996/2000'':
       DDG-51 destroyer program, $3,723,000;
       LPD-17 amphibious transport dock ship, $13,477,000;
       From:
       Under the heading, ``National Defense Sealift Fund, 1996'':
       Defense features, $30,000,000;
       Under the heading, ``National Defense Sealift Fund, 1999'':
       Research, development, test and evaluation, $8,000,000;
       To:
       Under the heading, ``National Defense Sealift Fund, 1997'':
       Maritime pre-positioning force enhancement, $38,000,000.
       Sec. 8084. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees by 
     February 1, 2000, a detailed report identifying, by amount 
     and by separate budget activity, activity group, subactivity 
     group, line item, program element, program, project, 
     subproject, and activity, any activity for which the fiscal 
     year 2001 budget request was reduced because Congress 
     appropriated funds above the President's budget request for 
     that specific activity for fiscal year 2000.
       Sec. 8085. Funds appropriated in title II of this Act and 
     for the Defense Health Program in title VI of this Act for 
     supervision and administration costs for facilities 
     maintenance and repair, minor construction, or design 
     projects may be obligated at the time the reimbursable order 
     is accepted by the performing activity: Provided, That for 
     the purpose of this section, supervision and administration 
     costs includes all in-house Government cost.
       Sec. 8086. The Secretary of Defense may waive reimbursement 
     of the cost of conferences, seminars, courses of instruction, 
     or similar educational activities of the Asia-Pacific Center 
     for Security Studies for military officers and civilian 
     officials of foreign nations if the Secretary determines that 
     attendance by such personnel, without reimbursement, is in 
     the national security interest of the United States: 
     Provided, That costs for which reimbursement is waived 
     pursuant to this subsection shall be paid from appropriations 
     available for the Asia-Pacific Center.
       Sec. 8087. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Chief of the National Guard Bureau may permit the use of 
     equipment of the National Guard Distance Learning Project by 
     any person or entity on a space-available, reimbursable 
     basis. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall establish 
     the amount of reimbursement for such use on a case-by-case 
     basis.
       (b) Amounts collected under subsection (a) shall be 
     credited to funds available for the National Guard Distance 
     Learning Project and be available to defray the costs 
     associated with the use of equipment of the project under 
     that subsection. Such funds shall be available for such 
     purposes without fiscal year limitation.
       Sec. 8088. Using funds available by this Act or any other 
     Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to a 
     determination under section 2690 of title 10, United States 
     Code, may implement cost-effective agreements for required 
     heating facility modernization in the Kaiserslautern Military 
     Community in the Federal Republic of Germany: Provided, That 
     in the City of Kaiserslautern such agreements will include 
     the use of United States anthracite as the base load energy 
     for municipal district heat to the United States Defense 
     installations: Provided further, That at Landstuhl Army 
     Regional Medical Center and Ramstein Air Base, furnished heat 
     may be obtained from private, regional or municipal services, 
     if provisions are included for the consideration of United 
     States coal as an energy source.
       Sec. 8089. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3902, during the 
     current fiscal year, interest penalties may be paid by the 
     Department of Defense from funds financing the operation of 
     the military department or defense agency with which the 
     invoice or contract payment is associated.
       Sec. 8090. None of the funds appropriated in title IV of 
     this Act may be used to procure end-items for delivery to 
     military forces for operational training, operational use or 
     inventory requirements: Provided, That this restriction does 
     not apply to end-items used in development, prototyping, and 
     test activities preceding and leading to acceptance for 
     operational use: Provided further, That this restriction does 
     not apply to programs funded within the National Foreign 
     Intelligence Program: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by 
     certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate that it is in the 
     national security interest to do so.


                             (Rescissions)

       Sec. 8091. Of the funds provided in the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-262), 
     $452,100,000, to reflect savings from revised economic 
     assumptions, is hereby rescinded as of the date of enactment 
     of this Act, or October 1, 1999, whichever is later, from the 
     following accounts in the specified amounts:
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Army'', $8,000,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Army'', $7,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, 
     Army'', $9,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Army'', $6,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Army'', $19,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy'', $44,000,000;
       ``Weapons Procurement, Navy'', $8,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps'', 
     $3,000,000;
       ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'', $37,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Navy'', $23,000,000;
       ``Procurement, Marine Corps'', $5,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'', $46,000,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force'', $14,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force'', $2,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force'', $44,400,000;
       ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', $5,200,000;
       ``Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army'', 
     $5,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', 
     $20,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'', 
     $40,900,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'', 
     $76,900,000; and
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-
     Wide'', $28,700,000:
     Provided, That these reductions shall be applied 
     proportionally to each budget activity, activity group and 
     subactivity group and each program, project, and activity 
     within each appropriation account.
       Sec. 8092. The budget of the President for fiscal year 2001 
     submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, 
     United States Code, and each annual budget request 
     thereafter, shall include budget activity groups (known as 
     ``subactivities'') in all appropriations accounts provided in 
     this Act, as may

[[Page H6288]]

     be necessary, to separately identify all costs incurred by 
     the Department of Defense to support the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization and all Partnership For Peace programs 
     and initiatives. The budget justification materials submitted 
     to Congress in support of the budget of the Department of 
     Defense for fiscal year 2001, and subsequent fiscal years, 
     shall provide complete, detailed estimates for all such 
     costs.
       Sec. 8093. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to approve or license the sale of the F-22 advanced 
     tactical fighter to any foreign government.
       Sec. 8094. (a) The Secretary of Defense may, on a case-by-
     case basis, waive with respect to a foreign country each 
     limitation on the procurement of defense items from foreign 
     sources provided in law if the Secretary determines that the 
     application of the limitation with respect to that country 
     would invalidate cooperative programs entered into between 
     the Department of Defense and the foreign country, or would 
     invalidate reciprocal trade agreements for the procurement of 
     defense items entered into under section 2531 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and the country does not discriminate 
     against the same or similar defense items produced in the 
     United States for that country.
       (b) Subsection (a) applies with respect to--
       (1) contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) options for the procurement of items that are exercised 
     after such date under contracts that are entered into before 
     such date if the option prices are adjusted for any reason 
     other than the application of a waiver granted under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Subsection (a) does not apply to a limitation regarding 
     construction of public vessels, ball and roller bearings, 
     food, and clothing or textile materials as defined by section 
     11 (chapters 50-65) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and 
     products classified under headings 4010, 4202, 4203, 6401 
     through 6406, 6505, 7019, 7218 through 7229, 7304.41 through 
     7304.49, 7306.40, 7502 through 7508, 8105, 8108, 8109, 8211, 
     8215, and 9404.
       Sec. 8095. Funds made available to the Civil Air Patrol in 
     this Act under the heading ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-
     Drug Activities, Defense'' may be used for the Civil Air 
     Patrol Corporation's counterdrug program, including its 
     demand reduction program involving youth programs, as well as 
     operational and training drug reconnaissance missions for 
     Federal, State and local government agencies; for 
     administrative costs, including the hiring of Civil Air 
     Patrol Corporation employees; for travel and per diem 
     expenses of Civil Air Patrol Corporation personnel in support 
     of those missions; and for equipment needed for mission 
     support or performance: Provided, That of these funds, 
     $300,000 shall be made available to establish and operate a 
     distance learning program: Provided further, That the 
     Department of the Air Force should waive reimbursement from 
     the Federal, State and local government agencies for the use 
     of these funds.
       Sec. 8096. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     TRICARE managed care support contracts in effect, or in final 
     stages of acquisition as of September 30, 1999, may be 
     extended for two years: Provided, That any such extension may 
     only take place if the Secretary of Defense determines that 
     it is in the best interest of the Government: Provided 
     further, That any contract extension shall be based on the 
     price in the final best and final offer for the last year of 
     the existing contract as adjusted for inflation and other 
     factors mutually agreed to by the contractor and the 
     Government: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, all future TRICARE managed care support 
     contracts replacing contracts in effect, or in the final 
     stages of acquisition as of September 30, 1999, may include a 
     base contract period for transition and up to seven one-year 
     option periods.
       Sec. 8097. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     compensate an employee of the Department of Defense who 
     initiates a new start program without notification to the 
     Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Office of Management 
     and Budget, and the congressional defense committees, as 
     required by Department of Defense financial management 
     regulations.
       Sec. 8098. Section 8118 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-262; 112 Stat. 2331; 
     10 U.S.C. 2241 note) is amended by striking ``convicted'' and 
     inserting ``debarred by the Department of Defense based upon 
     a conviction''.
       Sec. 8099. In addition to the amounts provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     $5,000,000 is hereby appropriated to the Office of the 
     Secretary of Defense, and is available only for a grant to 
     the Women in Military Service for America Memorial 
     Foundation, Inc., only for costs associated with completion 
     of the ``Women in Military Service For America'' memorial at 
     Arlington National Cemetery.


                      Training and Other Programs

       Sec. 8100. (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds made 
     available by this Act may be used to support any training 
     program involving a unit of the security forces of a foreign 
     country if the Secretary of Defense has received credible 
     information from the Department of State that the unit has 
     committed a gross violation of human rights, unless all 
     necessary corrective steps have been taken.
       (b) Monitoring.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, shall ensure that prior to a 
     decision to conduct any training program referred to in 
     subsection (a), full consideration is given to all credible 
     information available to the Department of State relating to 
     human rights violations by foreign security forces.
       (c) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense, after consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, may waive the prohibition in 
     subsection (a) if he determines that such waiver is required 
     by extraordinary circumstances.
       Sec. 8101. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced 
     by $171,000,000 to reflect savings from favorable foreign 
     currency fluctuations, to be distributed as follows:
       ``Military Personnel, Army'', $19,100,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Navy'', $2,200,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Air Force'', $9,900,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $80,700,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $13,700,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force,'' $26,900,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $8,700,000; 
     and
       ``Defense Health Program'', $9,800,000.
       Sec. 8102. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Defense may retain all or a portion of the 
     family housing at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, as the 
     Secretary deems necessary to meet military family housing 
     needs arising out of the relocation of elements of the United 
     States Army South to Fort Buchanan.


  U.S. Army National Training Center Access and Training Enhancements

       Sec. 8103. From within amounts made available in title II 
     of this Act, under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', and notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     $12,500,000 shall be available only for repairs and safety 
     improvements to the segment of Fort Irwin Road which extends 
     from Interstate 15 northeast toward the boundary of Fort 
     Irwin, California and the originating intersection of Irwin 
     Road: Provided, That these funds shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That the authorized scope of work 
     includes, but is not limited to, environmental documentation 
     and mitigation, engineering and design, improving safety, 
     resurfacing, widening lanes, and replacing signs and pavement 
     markings: Provided further, That these funds may be used for 
     advances to the Federal Highway Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, for the authorized scope of work.
       Sec. 8104. Funds appropriated to the Department of the Navy 
     in title II of this Act may be available to replace lost and 
     canceled Treasury checks issued to Trans World Airlines in 
     the total amount of $255,333.24 for which timely claims were 
     filed and for which detailed supporting records no longer 
     exist.
       Sec. 8105. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     section 112 of Public Law 105-261 shall apply only to phase 
     III of the Army's second source acquisition strategy for 
     medium tactical vehicles.
       Sec. 8106. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act to the Department of the Navy shall be used to 
     develop, lease or procure the ADC(X) class of ships unless 
     the main propulsion diesel engines are manufactured in the 
     United States by a domestically operated entity: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a 
     case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate that adequate domestic supplies are not available to 
     meet Department of Defense requirements on a timely basis and 
     that such an acquisition must be made in order to acquire 
     capability for national security purposes or there exists a 
     significant cost or quality difference.
       Sec. 8107. From within amounts made available in title II 
     of this Act under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', and notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, $2,500,000 shall be available only for a grant for 
     ``America's Promise--The Alliance for Youth, Inc.'', only to 
     support, on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis with non-
     departmental funds, efforts to mobilize individuals, groups 
     and organizations to build and strengthen the character and 
     competence of the Nation's youth.
       Sec. 8108. Of the funds made available in this Act, not 
     less than $47,100,000 shall be available to maintain an 
     attrition reserve force of 23 B-52 aircraft, of which 
     $3,000,000 shall be available from ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $34,500,000 shall be available from ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'', and $9,600,000 shall be available 
     from ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'': Provided, That the 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall maintain a total force of 94 
     B-52 aircraft, including 23 attrition reserve aircraft, 
     during fiscal year 2000: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     of Defense shall include in the Air Force budget request for 
     fiscal year 2001 amounts sufficient to maintain a B-52 force 
     totaling 94 aircraft.
       Sec. 8109. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in title II is hereby reduced 
     by $100,000,000 to reflect savings resulting from reviews of 
     Department of Defense missions and functions conducted 
     pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, to 
     be distributed as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $34,300,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $22,800,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $1,400,000; 
     and

[[Page H6289]]

       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $41,500,000:
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     the purpose of contracting out functions directly related to 
     the award of Department of Defense contracts, oversight of 
     contractors with the Department of Defense, or the payment of 
     such contractors including, but not limited to: contracting 
     technical officers, contact administration officers, 
     accounting and finance officers, and budget officers.
       Sec. 8110. (a) Report on OMB Circular A-76 Reviews of Work 
     Performed by DOD Employees.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit a report not later than 90 days after the enactment of 
     this Act which lists all instances since 1995 in which 
     missions or functions of the Department of Defense have been 
     reviewed by the Department of Defense pursuant to OMB 
     Circular A-76. The report shall list the disposition of each 
     such review and indicate whether the review resulted in the 
     performance of such missions or functions by Department of 
     Defense civilian and military personnel, or whether such 
     reviews resulted in performance by contractors. The report 
     shall include a description of the types of missions or 
     functions, the locations where the missions or functions are 
     performed, the name of the contractor performing the work (if 
     applicable), the cost to perform the missions or functions at 
     the time the review was conducted, and the current cost to 
     perform the missions or functions.
       (b) Report on OMB Circular A-76 Reviews of Work Performed 
     by DOD Contractors.--The report shall also identify those 
     instances in which work performed by a contractor has been 
     converted to performance by civilian or military employees of 
     the Department of Defense. For each instance of contracting 
     in, the report shall include a description of the types of 
     work, the locations where the work was performed, the name of 
     the contractor that was performing the work, the cost of 
     contractor performance at the time the work was contracted 
     in, and the current cost of performance by civilian or 
     military employees of the Department of Defense. In addition, 
     the report shall include recommendations for maximizing the 
     possibility of effective public-private competition for work 
     that has been contracted out.
       (c) Comptroller General Review.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date on which the Secretary submits the annual 
     report, the Comptroller General shall submit to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations the Comptroller General's 
     views on whether the Department has complied with the 
     requirements for the report.
       Sec. 8111. The budget of the President for fiscal year 2001 
     submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, 
     United States Code, and each annual budget request 
     thereafter, shall include separate budget justification 
     documents for costs of United States armed forces' 
     participation in contingency operations for the Military 
     Personnel accounts, the Procurement accounts, and the 
     Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund: Provided, That 
     these budget justification documents shall include a 
     description of the funding requested for each anticipated 
     contingency operation, for each military service, to include 
     active duty and Guard and Reserve components, and for each 
     appropriation account: Provided further, That these documents 
     shall include estimated costs for each element of expense or 
     object class, a reconciliation of increases and decreases for 
     ongoing contingency operations, and programmatic data 
     including, but not limited to troop strength for each active 
     duty and Guard and Reserve component, and estimates of the 
     major weapons systems deployed in support of each 
     contingency.
       Sec. 8112. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or 
     made available by this Act, $20,000,000 is appropriated to 
     the Army National Guard and shall be available only for the 
     purpose of the procurement or lease of fire-fighting aircraft 
     or systems.


                     (Including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8113. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in this Act, $50,000,000 is hereby 
     appropriated, only to initiate and expand activities of the 
     Department of Defense to prevent, prepare for, and respond to 
     a terrorist attack in the United States involving weapons of 
     mass destruction: Provided, That funds made available under 
     this section shall be transferred to the following accounts:
       ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', $2,000,000;
       ``National Guard Personnel, Army'', $4,310,000;
       ``National Guard Personnel, Air Force'', $1,080,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $12,110,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', 
     $12,320,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Army'', $12,180,000; and
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', 
     $6,000,000:
     Provided further, That funds transferred pursuant to this 
     section shall be merged with and be available for the same 
     purposes and for the same time period as the appropriation to 
     which transferred: Provided further, That the transfer 
     authority provided in this section is in addition to any 
     other transfer authority available to the Department of 
     Defense: Provided further, That of the funds transferred to 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', not less 
     than $3,000,000 shall be made available only to establish 
     cost effective counter-terrorism training of first responders 
     and concurrent testing of response apparatus and equipment at 
     the Memorial Tunnel Facility as part of the WMD Study under 
     the WMD Task Force: Provided further, That of the funds 
     transferred to ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National 
     Guard'', not less than $2,000,000 shall be made available 
     only to support development of a structured undergraduate 
     research program designed to produce graduates with 
     specialized laboratory training and scientific skills 
     required by military and industrial laboratories engaged in 
     combating the threat of biological and chemical terrorism: 
     Provided further, That of the funds transferred to 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', not less 
     than $3,500,000 shall be made available only to enhance 
     distance learning technologies and develop related courseware 
     to provide training for counter-terrorism and related 
     concerns: Provided further, That of the funds transferred to 
     ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', not 
     less than $3,000,000 shall be made available only to continue 
     development and presentation of advanced distributed learning 
     consequence management response courses and conventional 
     courses.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8114. In addition to the amounts made available 
     elsewhere in this Act, $150,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, is hereby appropriated to ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', only for information assurance 
     programs, to include protection from non-authorized access to 
     information technology systems and computer systems, and for 
     related infrastructure expenses: Provided, That funds under 
     this heading may only be obligated after the approval of the 
     Deputy Secretary of Defense: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds provided by this provision may be obligated or 
     transferred to other appropriations accounts until fifteen 
     days after the Deputy Secretary of Defense has submitted to 
     the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a proposed 
     funding allocation and a plan for the Department of Defense 
     to achieve information superiority and information assurance: 
     Provided further, That the Deputy Secretary of Defense shall 
     provide written notification to the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer of any 
     amount in excess of $10,000,000 to a specific program or 
     project: Provided further, That funds made available under 
     this heading may be transferred only to operation and 
     maintenance accounts, procurement accounts, the Defense 
     Health Program appropriation, and research, development, test 
     and evaluation accounts: Provided further, That the funds 
     transferred shall be merged with and shall be available for 
     the same purposes and for the same time period as the 
     appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     the transfer authority provided in this section shall be in 
     addition to the transfer authority provided to the Department 
     of Defense in this Act or any other Act.
       Sec. 8115. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall, along with 
     submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the 
     Department of Defense, submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report, in both unclassified and classified 
     versions, which contains an assessment of the advantages or 
     disadvantages of deploying a ground-based National Missile 
     Defense system at more than one site.
       (b) This report shall include, but not be limited to, an 
     assessment of the following issues:
       (1) The ability of a single site, versus multiple sites, to 
     counter the expected ballistic missile threat;
       (2) The optimum basing locations for a single and multiple 
     site National Missile Defense system;
       (3) The survivability and redundancy of potential National 
     Missile Defense systems under a single or multiple site 
     architecture;
       (4) The estimated costs (including development, 
     construction and infrastructure, and procurement of 
     equipment) associated with different site deployment options; 
     and
       (5) Other issues bearing on deploying a National Missile 
     Defense system at one or more sites.
       Sec. 8116. The Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of 
     the Air Force each shall submit a report to the congressional 
     defense committees within 90 days of enactment of this Act in 
     both classified and unclassified form which shall provide a 
     detailed description of the dedicated aggressor squadrons 
     used to conduct combat flight training for the Navy, Marine 
     Corps and Air Force covering the period from fiscal year 1990 
     through the present. For each year of the specified time 
     period, each report shall provide a detailed description of 
     the following: the assets which comprise dedicated aggressor 
     squadrons including both aircrews, and the types and models 
     of aircraft assigned to these squadrons; the number of 
     training sorties for all forms of combat flight training 
     which require aggressor aircraft, and the number of sorties 
     that the dedicated aggressor squadrons can generate to meet 
     these requirements; the ratio of the total inventory of 
     attack and fighter aircraft to the number of aircraft 
     available for dedicated aggressor squadrons; a comparison of 
     the performance characteristics of the aircraft assigned to 
     dedicated aggressor squadrons compared to the performance 
     characteristics of the aircraft they are intended to 
     represent in training scenarios; an assessment of pilot 
     proficiency by year from 1986 to the present;

[[Page H6290]]

     Service recommendations to enhance aggressor squadron 
     proficiency to include number of dedicated aircraft, 
     equipment, facilities, and personnel; and a plan that 
     proposes improvements in dissimilar aircraft air combat 
     training.
       Sec. 8117. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or other Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Acts may be obligated or expended for the 
     purpose of performing repairs or maintenance to military 
     family housing units of the Department of Defense, including 
     areas in such military family housing units that may be used 
     for the purpose of conducting official Department of Defense 
     business: Provided, That the Department of Defense Office of 
     the Inspector General shall provide a report to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than 60 days 
     after the enactment of this Act which assesses the compliance 
     of each of the military services with applicable 
     appropriations law, Office of Management and Budget 
     circulars, and Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) 
     directives which govern funding for maintenance and repairs 
     to flag officer quarters: Provided further, That this report 
     shall include an assessment as to whether there have been 
     violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act resulting from 
     instances of improper funding of such maintenance and repair 
     projects.
       Sec. 8118. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' for any 
     advanced concept technology demonstration project may only be 
     obligated thirty days after a report, including a description 
     of the project and its estimated annual and total cost, has 
     been provided in writing to the congressional defense 
     committees: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying to the 
     congressional defense committees that it is in the national 
     interest to do so: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under the heading ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' in the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-262) are available 
     for the Line of Sight Anti-Tank Program: Provided further, 
     That of the funds appropriated under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' in Public 
     Law 105-262, $10,027,000 shall be available only for the Air 
     Directed Surface to Air Missile.
       Sec. 8119. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act may be used for concept development, pre-engineering 
     management and development, engineering management and 
     development, risk reduction, program office operations, 
     travel of Department of Defense personnel, or contributions 
     to international cooperative efforts for the Medium Extended 
     Air Defense System, or successor systems: Provided, That none 
     of the funds appropriated under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' in the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 
     105-262) are available for the Medium Extended Air Defense 
     System or successor systems.
       Sec. 8120. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     conduct a Defense Acquisition Board oversight review of a 
     major weapon system acquisition unless the Commander-in-Chief 
     of the United States Atlantic Command is a fully 
     participating member of the Board which is conducting the 
     review: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act may be 
     used for the Defense Acquisition Board to approve a major 
     weapon system acquisition to proceed into a subsequent phase 
     of development or production unless the Commander-in-Chief of 
     the United States Atlantic Command certifies to the 
     congressional defense committees that the acquisition fully 
     meets joint service interoperability requirements as 
     determined by the theater Commanders-in-Chief: Provided 
     further, That no additional funds or personnel beyond those 
     contained in the fiscal year 2000 President's budget for 
     ongoing United States Atlantic Command activities are 
     available to support participation by the Commander-in-Chief 
     of the United States Atlantic Command in Defense Acquisition 
     Board weapon system reviews.
       Sec. 8121. Of the funds appropriated in title II of this 
     Act under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', 
     $250,000 shall be available only for a grant to the Nebraska 
     Game and Parks Commission for the purpose of locating, 
     identifying the boundaries of, acquiring, preserving, and 
     memorializing the cemetery site that is located in close 
     proximity to Fort Atkinson, Nebraska. The Secretary of the 
     Army shall require as a condition of such grant that the 
     Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, in carrying out the 
     purposes of which the grant is made, work in conjunction with 
     the Nebraska State Historical Society. The grant under this 
     section shall be made without regard to section 1301 of title 
     31, United States Code, or any other provision of law.
       Sec. 8122. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     the purpose of establishing all Department of Defense 
     policies governing the provision of care provided by and 
     financed under the military health care system, the term 
     ``custodial care'' shall be defined as care designed 
     essentially to assist an individual in meeting the activities 
     of daily living and which does not require the supervision of 
     trained medical, nursing, paramedical or other specially 
     trained individuals.
       Sec. 8123. During the current fiscal year--
       (1) refunds attributable to the use of the Government 
     travel card and refunds attributable to official Government 
     travel arranged by Government Contracted Travel Management 
     Centers may be credited to operation and maintenance accounts 
     of the Department of Defense which are current when the 
     refunds are received; and
       (2) refunds attributable to the use of the Government 
     Purchase Card by military personnel and civilian employees of 
     the Department of Defense may be credited to accounts of the 
     Department of Defense that are current when the refunds are 
     received and that are available for the same purposes as the 
     accounts originally charged.
       Sec. 8124. During the current fiscal year and hereafter, 
     any Federal grant of funds to an institution of higher 
     education to be available solely for student financial 
     assistance or related administrative costs may be used for 
     the purpose for which the grant is made without regard to any 
     provision to the contrary in section 514 of the Departments 
     of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997 (10 U.S.C. 503 note), or 
     section 983 of title 10, United States Code.


                     Information Technology Systems

       Sec. 8125. (a) Registering With DOD Chief Information 
     Officer.--After March 31, 2000, none of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act may be used for an information 
     technology system that is not registered with the Chief 
     Information Officer of the Department of Defense. A system 
     shall be considered to be registered with that officer upon 
     the furnishing to that officer of notice of the system, 
     together with such information concerning the system as the 
     Secretary of Defense may prescribe.
       (b) Milestone Certifications to Congressional Committees.--
     An information technology system may not receive Milestone I 
     approval, Milestone II approval, or Milestone III approval 
     until the Chief Information Officer of the Department of 
     Defense provides to the congressional defense committees 
     written certification, with respect to that milestone, that 
     the system is being developed in accordance with the sections 
     5122 and 5123 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 
     1422, 1423). The Chief Information Officer shall include with 
     any such certification a report providing, at a minimum, the 
     funding baseline and milestone schedule for the system and 
     confirmation that the following steps have been taken with 
     respect to the system:
       (1) Business process reengineering.
       (2) An analysis of alternatives.
       (3) An economic analysis that includes a calculation of the 
     return on investment.
       (4) Performance measures.
       (5) Effective information security measure.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``Chief Information Officer'' means the senior 
     official of the Department of Defense designated by the 
     Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 3506 of title 44, 
     United States Code.
       (2) The term ``information technology'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 5002 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 
     1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401), but does not include a national 
     security system.
       (3) The term ``national security system'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 5142 of such Act (40 U.S.C. 1452).
       Sec. 8126. During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to 
     provide support to another department or agency of the United 
     States if such department or agency is more than 90 days in 
     arrears in making payment to the Department of Defense for 
     goods or services previously provided to such department or 
     agency on a reimbursable basis: Provided, That this 
     restriction shall not apply if the Department is authorized 
     by law to provide support to such department or agency on a 
     nonreimbursable basis, and is providing the requested support 
     pursuant to such authority: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying in writing to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     that it is in the national security interest to do so.
       Sec. 8127. (a) Recovery of Certain DOD Administrative 
     Expenses in Connection With Foreign Military Sales Program.--
     Charges for administrative services calculated under section 
     21(e) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761(e)) in 
     connection with the sale of defense articles or defense 
     services shall (notwithstanding paragraph (3) of section 
     43(b) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2792(b)) include recovery of 
     administrative expenses incurred by the Department of Defense 
     during fiscal year 2000 that are attributable to (1) salaries 
     of members of the Armed Forces, and (2) unfunded estimated 
     costs of civilian retirement and other benefits.
       (b) Reimbursement of Applicable Military Personnel 
     Accounts.--During the current fiscal year, amounts in the 
     Foreign Military Sales Trust Fund shall be available in an 
     amount not to exceed $63,000,000 to reimburse the applicable 
     military personnel accounts in title I of this Act for the 
     value of administrative expenses referred in subsection 
     (a)(1).
       (c) Reductions To Reflect Amounts Expected To Be 
     Recovered.--(1) The amounts in title I of this Act are hereby 
     reduced by an aggregate of $63,000,000 (such amount being the 
     amount expected to be recovered by reason of subsection 
     (a)(1)).

[[Page H6291]]

       (2) The amounts in title II of this Act are hereby reduced 
     by an aggregate of $31,000,000 (such amount being that amount 
     expected to be recovered by reason of subsection (a)(2)).
       Sec. 8128. (a) The Communications Act of 1934 is amended in 
     section 337(b) (47 U.S.C. 337(b)), by deleting paragraph (2). 
     Upon enactment of this provision, the FCC shall initiate the 
     competitive bidding process in fiscal year 1999 and shall 
     conduct the competitive bidding in a manner that ensures that 
     all proceeds of such bidding are deposited in accordance with 
     section 309(j)(8) of the Act not later than September 30, 
     2000. To expedite the assignment by competitive bidding of 
     the frequencies identified in section 337(a)(2) of the Act, 
     the rules governing such frequencies shall be effective 
     immediately upon publication in the Federal Register, 
     notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 553(d), 801(a)(3), 804(2), and 
     806(a). Chapter 6 of such title, 15 U.S.C. 632, and 44 U.S.C. 
     3507 and 3512, shall not apply to the rules and competitive 
     bidding procedures governing such frequencies. 
     Notwithstanding section 309(b) of the Act, no application for 
     an instrument of authorization for such frequencies shall be 
     granted by the Commission earlier than 7 days following 
     issuance of public notice by the Commission of the acceptance 
     for filing of such application or of any substantial 
     amendment thereto. Notwithstanding section 309(d)(1) of such 
     Act, the Commission may specify a period (no less than 5 days 
     following issuance of such public notice) for the filing of 
     petitions to deny any application for an instrument of 
     authorization for such frequencies.
       (b)(1) Not later than 15 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget and the Federal Communications 
     Commission shall each submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report which shall--
       (A) set forth the anticipated schedule (including specific 
     dates) for--
       (i) preparing and conducting the competitive bidding 
     process required by subsection (a); and
       (ii) depositing the receipts of the competitive bidding 
     process;
       (B) set forth each signficant milestone in the rulemaking 
     process with respect to the competitive bidding process;
       (C) include an explanation of the effect of each 
     requirement in subsection (a) on the schedule for the 
     competitive bidding process and any post-bidding activities 
     (including the deposit of receipts) when compared with the 
     schedule for the competitive bidding and any post-bidding 
     activities (including the deposit of receipts) that would 
     otherwise have occurred under section 337(b)(2) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 337(b)(2)) if not for 
     the enactment of subsection (a);
       (D) set forth for each spectrum auction held by the Federal 
     Communications Commission since 1993 information on--
       (i) the time required for each stage of preparation for the 
     auction;
       (ii) the date of the commencement and of the completion of 
     the auction;
       (iii) the time which elapsed between the date of the 
     completion of the auction and the date of the first deposit 
     of receipts from the auction in the Treasury; and
       (iv) the dates of all subsequent deposits of receipts from 
     the auction in the Treasury; and
       (E) include an assessment of how the stages of the 
     competitive bidding process required by subsection (a), 
     including preparation, commencement and completion, and 
     deposit of receipts, will differ from similar stages in the 
     auctions referred to in subparagraph (D).
       (2) Not later than October 5, 2000, the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget and the Federal 
     Communications Commission shall each submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees the report which shall--
       (A) describe the course of the competitive bidding process 
     required by subsection (a) through September 30, 2000, 
     including the amount of any receipts from the competitive 
     bidding process deposited in the Treasury as of September 30, 
     2000; and
       (B) if the course of the competitive bidding process has 
     included any deviations from the schedule set forth under 
     paragraph (1)(A), an explanation for such deviations from the 
     schedule.
       (3) The Federal Communications Commission may not consult 
     with the Director in the preparation and submittal of the 
     reports required of the Commission by this subsection.
       (4) In this subsection, the term ``appropriate 
     congressional committees'' means the following:
       (A) The Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and 
     Commerce of the Senate.
       (B) The Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives.


Department of Defense Report on the Conduct of Operation Desert Fox and 
                         Operation Allied Force

       Sec. 8129. (a) Report Required.--Not later than January 31, 
     2000, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees in both classified and 
     unclassified form a report on the conduct of Operation Desert 
     Fox and Operation Allied Force (also referred to as Operation 
     Noble Anvil). The Secretary of Defense shall submit to such 
     committees a preliminary report on the conduct of these 
     operations not later than October 15, 1999. The report 
     (including the preliminary report) should be prepared in 
     consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
     the Commander in Chief of the United States Central Command, 
     and the Commander in Chief of the United States European 
     Command.
       (b) Review of Successes and Deficiencies.--The report 
     should contain a thorough review of the successes and 
     deficiencies of these operations, with respect to the 
     following matters:
       (1) United States military objectives in these operations.
       (2) With respect to Operation Allied Force, the military 
     strategy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to 
     obtain said military objectives.
       (3) The command structure for the execution of Operation 
     Allied Force.
       (4) The process for identifying, nominating, selecting, and 
     verifying targets to be attacked during Operation Desert Fox 
     and Operation Allied Force.
       (5) A comprehensive battle damage assessment of targets 
     prosecuted during the conduct of the air campaigns in these 
     operations, to include--
       (A) fixed targets, both military and civilian, to include 
     bridges, roads, rail lines, airfields, power generating 
     plants, broadcast facilities, oil refining infrastructure, 
     fuel and munitions storage installations, industrial plants 
     producing military equipment, command and control nodes, 
     civilian leadership bunkers and military barracks;
       (B) mobile military targets such as tanks, armored 
     personnel carriers, artillery pieces, trucks, and air defense 
     assets;
       (C) with respect to Operation Desert Fox, research and 
     production facilities associated with Iraq's weapons of mass 
     destruction and ballistic missile programs, and any military 
     units or organizations associated with such activities within 
     Iraq; and
       (D) a discussion of decoy, deception and counter-
     intelligence techniques employed by the Iraqi and Serbian 
     military.
       (6) The use and performance of United States military 
     equipment, weapon systems, munitions, and national and 
     tactical reconnaissance and surveillance assets (including 
     items classified under special access procedures) and an 
     analysis of--
       (A) any equipment or capabilities that were in research and 
     development and if available could have been used in these 
     operations' respective theater of operations;
       (B) any equipment or capabilities that were available and 
     could have been used but were not introduced into these 
     operations' respective theater of operations; and
       (C) any equipment or capabilities that were introduced to 
     these operations' respective theater of operations that could 
     have been used but were not.
       (7) Command, control, communications and operational 
     security of NATO forces as a whole and United States forces 
     separately during Operation Allied Force, including the 
     ability of United States aircraft to operate with aircraft of 
     other nations without degradation of capabilities or 
     protection of United States forces.
       (8) The deployment of United States forces and supplies to 
     the theater of operations, including an assessment of airlift 
     and sealift (to include a specific assessment of the 
     deployment of Task Force Hawk during Operation Allied Force, 
     to include detailed explanations for the delay in initial 
     deployment, the suitability of equipment deployed compared to 
     other equipment in the U.S. inventory that was not deployed, 
     and a critique of the training provided to operational 
     personnel prior to and during the deployment).
       (9) The use of electronic warfare assets, in particular an 
     assessment of the adequacy of EA-6B aircraft in terms of 
     inventory, capabilities, deficiencies, and ability to provide 
     logistics support.
       (10) The effectiveness of reserve component forces 
     including their use and performance in the theater of 
     operations.
       (11) The contributions of United States (and with respect 
     to Operation Allied Force, NATO) intelligence and 
     counterintelligence systems and personnel, including an 
     assessment of the targeting selection and bomb damage 
     assessment process.
       (c) The report should also contain:
       (1) An analysis of the transfer of operational assets from 
     other United States Unified Commands to these operations' 
     theater of operations and the impact on the readiness, 
     warfighting capability and deterrence value of those 
     commands.
       (2) An analysis of the implications of these operations as 
     regards the ability of United States armed forces and 
     intelligence capabilities to carry out the current national 
     security strategy, including--
       (A) whether the Department of Defense and its components, 
     and the intelligence community and its components, have 
     sufficient force structure and manning as well as equipment 
     (to include items such as munitions stocks) to deploy, 
     prosecute and sustain operations in a second major theater of 
     war as called for under the current national security 
     strategy;
       (B) which, if any aspects, of currently programmed 
     manpower, operations, training and other readiness programs, 
     and weapons and other systems are found to be inadequate in 
     terms of supporting the national military strategy; and
       (C) what adjustments need to be made to current defense 
     planning and budgets, and specific programs to redress any 
     deficiencies identified by this analysis.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2000''.


[[Page H6292]]




                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       At the end of the bill insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. --. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to procure a munition of a type referred to as a 
     ``cluster bomb'' (also known as ``combined effects 
     munitions'', ``CBU munitions'', ``sensor-fused weapons'', 
     ``area-impact munitions'', ``anti-personnel bomblets'', 
     ``anti-material bomblets'', and ``anti-armor bomblets'').

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would prohibit any funds for the procurement of cluster bombs. Cluster 
bombs come in all types, sizes, colors and labels. But they all do two 
things. They often fail to explode when dropped in wartime, and they 
kill innocent civilians long after the war is over.
  These weapons are dropped either by aircraft or rocket launchers. 
They break open in midair and disperse hundreds of bomblets that 
saturate an area with flying shards of steel. Cluster bombs turn into 
land mines when some of the bomblets fail to explode right away. The 
failure rate in cluster weapons is extremely high, between 5 percent to 
30 percent. A GAO report on Desert Storm states that during the Gulf 
War, the Army's MLRS, the military launch rocket system, failed to 
explode when dropped more than 5 percent of the time, with some 
reaching a failure rate as high as 23 percent.
  These unexploded bombs essentially become land mines and wreak havoc 
and kill civilians long after the war is over. About 1,100 cluster 
bombs containing more than 200,000 bomblets rained down on Yugoslavia 
and the Kosovo province. More than 1,100 unexploded bomblets are lying 
in fields in Kosovo. Usually these weapons come in various colors and 
toy-sized shapes to designate their type. They are very attractive to 
young children. Many of these children that play or are curious about 
these bombs are either killed or maimed. A recent example of this took 
place Saturday, April 24, when five ethnic Albanian children ages 3 to 
15 were killed by unexploded cluster bombs trying to pry one open with 
a knife. According to the World Health Organization, in the past month 
over 170 people, that is over 170 people, have been killed or maimed by 
unexploded cluster bombs. Only last month, two British soldiers were 
killed trying to defuse an unexploded cluster bomb.
  During the Gulf War, more than one-quarter of the total number of 
weapons dropped by aircraft in Iraq and Kuwait were cluster bombs. This 
means that 24 million to 30 million bomblets were dropped during the 
Gulf War. More than 1.2 million of these bombs failed to explode during 
the Gulf War and are now killing people, even though the war is over. 
More than 1,600 civilians were killed and over 2,500 injured in the 
first 2 years after the end of the Gulf War from cluster bombs. A 
Kuwaiti doctor said that 60 percent of those killed were children.
  During the Vietnam War, more than 2.3 million tons of bombs fell on 
Laos. Many of them were cluster bombs. With a failure rate of 30 
percent, an estimated 4 million cluster bomblets are still lying in 
rice fields, villages and on roadsides in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
  I want to bring my colleagues' attention to a young boy who fell 
victim to a cluster bomb explosion just 2 years ago, in 1996, 20 years 
after the end of the Vietnam War. While tilling the family rice paddy 
behind a water buffalo Ton Kemla's plow hit a long-hidden cluster 
bomblet that exploded and ripped him apart. My colleagues, because of 
cluster bombs, a young man in Laos became a victim of the war 20 years 
after the conclusion of the war. He had not even been born when the war 
officially ended. No difference, cluster bombs destroyed him even after 
the troops stopped fighting. He is not alone. There are many like him.
  I ask why do we buy weapons and use weapons that have such a high 
incidence of failure and a high likelihood of killing after the war is 
over? We have much more sophisticated weaponry that is smarter and more 
effective in fighting a war. We will have spent more than $4.8 billion 
between 1995 and 1999 buying cluster bombs. We should not spend another 
penny on weapons that fail and that kill children after a war is over.
  In addition to that, we have incidents where cluster bombs were 
dropped on populated areas during the war. What is NATO doing letting 
cluster bombs fall on populated areas?
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I appreciate what the gentleman from Ohio is saying. I appreciate the 
tragedy in every war. Having been on the ground in combat myself, I 
have seen the mutilation of people affected by the wars themselves. It 
is not a pretty sight. We have had some record that we have had some 
problems with cluster bombs. It seems to me, though, that to ban them 
completely would endanger our own troops. I would have to oppose this 
strongly until we had an opportunity to maybe work out something, where 
in case we are fighting the type of war we did lately, that we would 
not use them in that type of war. I do not even know that I could agree 
to that. But I certainly could not agree to not using them at a time 
when it protects our own forces.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. One 
of the things that called this to my attention is there was a dropping 
of cluster bombs at a downtown area of Nice, killing and injuring 
scores of shoppers and destroying about 20 homes.
  Mr. MURTHA. I understand what the gentleman is saying, and I 
appreciate what he is saying. I think it is something we should look 
into. I would like to get this to a vote so we can move on with the 
bill.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I respect the gentleman.
  I would ask the gentleman, finally, if the gentleman would be 
interested in at least reviewing this policy related to cluster bombs 
being dropped near populated areas.
  Mr. MURTHA. I think that is a legitimate request, and, working with 
the committee, I am sure we can work something out here.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.    . (a) The Comptroller General, the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office, and the Director of the 
     Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress 
     shall conduct such studies as appropriate and within their 
     respective capabilities to assist Congress in evaluating the 
     air campaign conducted by the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization (NATO) against the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia during Operation Allied Force in 1999. Those 
     studies shall, at a minimum, identify the following matters:
       (1) The damage that the NATO plan for the air campaign 
     identified as necessary.
       (2) The reasons why that damage was identified as being 
     necessary.
       (3) The military forces that the plan required and the 
     extent to which those forces were committed.
       (4) The extent to which the air campaign achieved the 
     desired level of damage.
       (5) The extent to which the damage caused by the air 
     campaign had the predicted effects in terms of reducing 
     capabilities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in Kosovo.
       (6) The extent to which the damage caused by the air 
     campaign had the predicted effects in terms of undermining 
     command and control capabilities of the ruling regime of the 
     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
       (7) The role of the bombing in obtaining the agreement of 
     the regime of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the 
     Military Technical Agreement of June 10, 1999.
       (8) Any other factors that led to the decision by the 
     regime of the Federal Republic to the Military Technical 
     Agreement of June 10, 1999.
       (b) The studies under subsection (a) shall be submitted to 
     Congress not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) All data that would be declassified in the course of 
     the studies under subsection (a) shall be electronically 
     published on the Internet, and statistical data shall be 
     electronically published in spreadsheet form, for

[[Page H6293]]

     use by the public, academicians, and non-governmental 
     organizations.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California reserves a point of 
order.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today should 
not be controversial. The purpose of the amendment is to direct the 
Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, and 
the General Accounting Office to coordinate a study that would evaluate 
the effectiveness of the air campaign in the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia and in Kosovo.
  Astonishingly, no one is now conducting a study of such depth. 
Indeed, the Department of Defense is undertaking its own study of its 
performance in Yugoslavia. I commend them for doing that. But in my 
opinion their review will not go far enough. It will not completely 
answer an important question that many of us are asking: Was the 
bombing campaign effective in achieving our strategic and tactical 
goals in the Balkans?
  Many lessons will be learned from the Kosovo war. But will they be 
the right lessons? Will they be correct or will they be clouded in bias 
by various interests? The study I propose would allow for a truly 
independent study conducted by various independent organizations. After 
1 year, the report would be given to Congress and the data would be 
published on the Internet so that the public could have free and open 
access to it.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. If the gentleman would consider withdrawing this 
amendment, I would coordinate with him a letter from he and I to the 
GAO to get the kind of independent study he wants. I think it is a 
legitimate request, I think it is something we should do, and I think 
we should find out exactly what somebody outside the services believes 
about the bombing campaign and how effective it was and the other 
things that he has talked about.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I am interested in doing that. Could we also ask the 
GAO to perform this study quickly so that important evidence would not 
be lost?
  Mr. MURTHA. Absolutely.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Then I would gratefully express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania. I look forward to writing that letter with 
him.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise to engage the gentleman from California in a colloquy on a 
matter of concern that was brought to my attention by members of the 
Guard and Reserve. They believe that some savings may be realized by 
conversion of positions.
  I had planned to offer an amendment to clarify the scope of the 
Defense Department's study of contracting out military and civilian 
positions pursuant to OMB Circular A-76. As the gentleman from 
California knows, the Department of Defense announced in 1995 that it 
could save approximately $10 billion over the next 10 years by 
contracting out 230,000 jobs to the private sector. While I support the 
savings, I want to make sure that privatization does not harm war-
fighting capability of the United States Armed Forces.
  According to this week's ``Defense News,'' Department of Defense 
officials are beginning to rethink their policy of planned competitions 
because some of the services have asked if they could achieve the 
required manpower and cost savings through their own reengineering.
  This is what I believe we need to address. The Department of Defense 
has moved rapidly towards outsourcing, without allowing the individual 
service chiefs or base commanders the opportunity to meet manpower 
reductions and cost savings through other means. The Congress should 
encourage defense officials to consider savings that might be realized 
by giving greater consideration to retaining members of the military 
service and civilian personnel to perform required Department of 
Defense workload. I believe that cost savings can still be realized 
without affecting our war-fighting capability.
  I want to commend the gentleman from California for his efforts in 
assessing the privatization issue. I ask him if he agrees that section 
8109 and 8110 of the bill before us would cause the Department of 
Defense to give greater consideration to retaining government civilian 
employees and military members when considering whether to contract out 
support functions.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TERRY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague 
from Nebraska for bringing his concern to my attention, and I share his 
concern about the potential consequences that the current outsourcing 
initiative may have on the Department of Defense. I would also like to 
assure the gentleman that the intent of sections 8109 and 8110 is to 
give greater consideration to government employees and military service 
members as the Department of Defense continues its outsourcing 
initiative.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Stark

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stark:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.--. None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used by the Armed Forces to participate in, or to provide 
     support for, any airshow or trade exhibition held outside the 
     United States.

  Mr. STARK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment, and it does not 
save much money, but we learned from years ago from H. R. Gross that we 
save a little bit at a time and it adds up to a big amount.
  But we have been subsidizing defense contractors at air shows 
designed to sell our weapons to foreign governments. I have no quarrel, 
and I am not here to debate the value or the validity of air shows, but 
I am suggesting that we have had a long history with this, and it 
culminated in 1992 when a U.S. Marine aircraft crashed on its way back 
from the Singapore airport, and in response to that misuse of 
taxpayers' money, because we had subsidized that air show by sending 
our planes, our men to basically be demonstrators or sales people----
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, there is no question we banned this at one 
time, we have had an erosion on the plan, we agree with what the 
gentleman is trying to do, and on behalf of the minority Democrat side 
I certainly would be glad to accept the amendment.
  Mr. STARK. I appreciate the gentleman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
colleague bringing this matter to our attention. I have a very similar 
interests that he has here, and we are happy to accept the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. STARK. The gentleman's record is well known in that regard, and I 
deeply appreciate his support of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2561, the Defense 
Appropriations Act.

[[Page H6294]]

I would like to thank Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha for 
their excellent work on this bill. And while thanking the Chairman and 
Ranking Member is customary, I believe that the Committee this year was 
able, through congressional oversight and additional funding, to begin 
the process of helping the Department of Defense fix those parts of the 
Defense budget which are broken. Wherever you stand on the larger issue 
of defense spending and on particular programs and weapons systems, 
fixing the Defense budget is good news, and it will improve the 
national security of this country.
  This bill begins the process of fixing both long term budget 
problems, and near term problems identified during the recent conflict 
in Yugoslavia. The conflict in Kosovo was, in my view, an important 
triumph for U.S. ideals over the worst kind of repression seen in 
Europe in decades. But more centrally for the purposes of this bill, it 
also demonstrated and revealed much about the tremendous capabilities 
of several U.S. weapons systems including the B-2 bomber, and our 
deficiencies in other areas like electronic jamming. This bill seeks to 
emphasize and enhance those capabilities that performed well, and 
address those areas that revealed weaknesses.
  H.R. 2561 includes funding for a 15th JSTARS aircraft, which 
performed magnificently in Kosovo. The Air Force has a requirement for 
19 JSTARS, but only budgeted for 13. It increases funding for the EA-6B 
force, which was extremely effective but was strained to its limits 
flying continual sorties every day. And it continues the process of 
weaponizing the most advanced and effective bomber force in the world.
  The work done by the House of Representatives over the last several 
years to support the heavy bomber force was dramatically vindicated in 
this recent conflict. As many of you know, the B-2 was the star of the 
air campaign over Kosovo, but it was not the only star. JDAM, the Joint 
Direct Attack Munition, was also a tremendous success. This simple 
weapon costs only about $15,000 a copy to buy. But combined with the 
radar and accuracy of the B-2, it performed flawlessly, and demolished 
almost every target it was assigned to destroy. Compared to the over $1 
million cost of the CALCM cruise missiles also used in Kosovo, the JDAM 
was nothing short of a miracle for capability compared to cost. But as 
many of you know, JDAMs have only recently entered the U.S. arsenal. 
Boeing delivered the first production model of JDAM to the Air Force on 
June 24, 1998. The B-2 was still able to use JDAMs flawlessly, however, 
because Congress had appropriated funding for an early version, GATS/
GAM. Congress accelerated the GATS/GAM program in FY93 by over a year, 
and it was successfully tested in October of 1996. Without the 
experience of testing and training with GATS/GAM, we might not have 
been as successful in the early days of the air campaign in Kosovo, 
when the B-2 was the only plane that could access the skies over 
Belgrade, and the only plane that could attack anywhere in bad weather.
  We must continue to weaponize both the bomber and tac-air forces for 
conventional all-weather combat. We saw in Kosovo the importance of 
being able to forward deploy bombers closer to the theater of combat to 
get sortie rates up. We also saw the importance of in-theater 
communications. This highlights the need for Link 16 and inflight 
reprogramming capabilities on all of the bombers.
  H.R. 2561 fully funds those needs. For this reason, it enjoys my 
strong support, and I urge all members to vote ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. Are their further amendments?
  If there are no further amendments, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hansen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2561) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 256, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 379, 
nays 45, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 334]

                               YEAS--379

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--45

     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Eshoo
     Filner
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gutierrez
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kucinich
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Luther
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meeks (NY)

[[Page H6295]]


     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Stark
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Waxman

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Becerra
     Dunn
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     McDermott
     McInnis
     Peterson (PA)
     Portman
     Towns
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1726

  Mr. COBURN, Mr. CONYERS, and Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DEUTSCH, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Mr. WEYGAND and Ms. WOOLSEY changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, because I was in my District, I was absent 
for Rollcall vote 334. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall vote 334.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 1999, I was unavoidably 
detained during a rollcall vote; number 334, on passage of H.R. 2561, 
the Department of Defense Appropriations for F.Y. 2000. Had I been 
present for the vote, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________