[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 138 (Wednesday, October 13, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H9907-H9921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2561, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2000

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 326, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 326

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2561) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a 
normal conference report rule for H.R. 2561, the Fiscal Year 2000 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The rule waives all points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration. In 
addition, the rule provides that the conference report shall be 
considered as read.
  This should not be a controversial rule. It is a type of rule that we 
grant for every conference report that we consider in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday's military coup in Pakistan was a reminder to 
all of us that we live in an unstable world. We cannot ignore national 
defense. This appropriations bill, as well as the defense authorization 
bill which the President recently signed into law, is a strong step 
forward as we work to take care of our military personnel and provide 
for our national defense.
  We have a long way to go, but H.R. 2561 fully funds a 4.6 percent 
military pay raise so that we can get some of our enlisted men and 
their families off of food stamps. It provides $1.1 billion more than 
the President requested for the purchase of weapons and equipment and 
it sets aside funding for a national missile defense system so that we 
can protect ourselves from terrorist nations.
  This is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to 
support the underlying conference report, because now more than ever we 
must improve our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and this conference 
report; but, first and foremost, I rise in support of the men and women 
who serve the Nation faithfully, as well as members of our armed 
services. They are the ones who, when called upon, will be required to 
sacrifice their lives so that we may continue to live in freedom; and 
this conference report, Mr. Speaker, fulfills a commitment to them 
which I am proud to support.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report contains a package of pay and 
retirement improvements which keeps faith with our men and women in 
uniform. This conference report contains the largest military pay raise 
in 18 years, as well as funding for a change in pay scales and a series 
of pay and bonus incentives. These pay increases, bonuses, and other 
incentives prove our commitment to a better quality of life for our 
military personnel and their families.

[[Page H9908]]

 As an editorial in the Fort Worth Star Telegram noted on Monday, when 
the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act last week, 
he said the excellence of our military is the direct product of the 
excellence of our men and women in uniform. This bill invests in that 
excellence.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, the same holds true for this conference 
report. The conferees are to be commended for ensuring that quality of 
life, benefits and training for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
Marines, upon whom we depend for our national security, are squarely 
addressed. There is much left to do, but I believe the provision of the 
4.8 percent pay increase is a solid beginning. Incentives to retain our 
most skilled military personnel are also in the bill; but, again, there 
is still much to do to ensure that we not continue to lose men and 
women who have the skills and experience that are so critical to 
maintaining a fighting force that can quickly and effectively respond 
to any emergency or who can sustain a long-term effort.
  The ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), early this year called 1999 the Year of 
the Troops. This bill lives up to the commitments we as a body made 
earlier this year; but this is not the end of the story, Mr. Speaker, 
because there is still much to be done. In spite of the constraints on 
our budget, we must all make a commitment to continue to improve the 
quality of life for our military personnel and their families. 
Considering how much we ask of them, this is the least that we can do.
  The conference agreement also provides for those weapons systems that 
our military men and women will man and operate, and in particular this 
bill reflects a workable compromise on the future of the F-22 stealth 
fighter. While I would certainly have preferred that full funding for 
production of the first six F-22 fighters be included in this bill, the 
agreement does provide $750 million for the development of a test 
aircraft which will be subjected to rigorous tests prior to going 
forward with full scale acquisition. Also included is $277 million for 
the purchase of components for advanced procurement of ten F-22s if the 
test aircraft meets the test thresholds established in the conference 
agreement and provides the $1.2 billion requested by the President for 
further research and development of the aircraft.
  Mr. Speaker, production of this aircraft is the number one 
modernization priority of the Air Force. This program has received the 
unqualified endorsement of the entire Joint Chiefs, as well as all 10 
war fighting commanders in chief.
  The Secretary of Defense has called the F-22 the cornerstone of our 
Nation's global air power in the 21st Century. Mr. Speaker, no other 
aircraft in our current arsenal will be able to fulfill the role that 
the F-22 is designed to fill in the next century, and the conference 
agreement is a vast improvement over the zero funding that was in the 
House-passed bill. The conference agreement also provides for $246 
million to build ten F-16-C fighters, as well as $283 million for F-16 
modifications and upgrades. The bill also provides $302 million for 
upgrades for the B-2 bomber fleet and $856 million for the acquisition 
of 12 V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and $183 million for additional 
research and development on the V-22.
  The conference agreement provides for a total of $267.8 billion for 
the Department of Defense in the first fiscal year of the new century. 
The conferees have done the best with the funds available to them but, 
Mr. Speaker, we have found ourselves in the unenviable position of 
making trade-offs and delaying the funding for needed modernization 
programs while at the same time the needs of our military continue to 
grow as our obligations as the world's only superpower continue to 
expand. This bill is a good bill as far as it goes, but I believe that 
in future years the Congress must make every effort to continue to fund 
the needed programs that will ensure our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to adopt this rule and to adopt the 
conference report. This bill is good for our country and deserves our 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and I do 
this based on a provision that is in the bill, section 8160, which 
makes the statement, ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all 
military construction projects for which funds were appropriated in 
Public Law 106-52 are hereby authorized.''
  In other words, in an appropriations bill they are saying that 
anything we want to do is okay to do and we will assume that they were 
authorized. Now, this is not unusual. We do this often in bills. In 
fact, there are many committees who do not do an authorization bill and 
then an appropriations bill, but that is not the case with defense. We 
work very hard to do an authorization bill. We struggle with that. We 
have endless hours of hearings with that. We come up with a bipartisan, 
it is almost always a unanimous, vote. Certainly in my committee it is 
always a unanimous vote on the authorization process. Then we go to the 
full committee, and it is almost always a unanimous vote.
  So we have struggled with these things, trying to authorize the 
things that really do make sense, that are good public policy.
  Then we go through the conference process, and we struggle with the 
Senate, and we come out, and we have an authorization bill. Now, many 
times the appropriations bill is out ahead of the authorizations bill, 
and so they can accept statements like this because they are out ahead, 
but that is not the case this year. The authorization bill is first. It 
has been signed by the President. The Committee on Rules, I asked in 
the Committee on Rules that they make these authorizations subject to a 
point of order so that we could at least get to these things and 
determine whether or not we want to do them or not. The Committee on 
Rules did not do that.
  This is bad policy. This is a bad way to do our business here on the 
House Floor. It raises the question of whether or not we need an 
authorization committee and a Committee on Appropriations if the 
Committee on Appropriations is going to do it all.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would request that we would reject this rule and 
come back with a rule that would give us an opportunity to deal with 
this blanket authorization which is being done in an appropriations 
bill.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for doing their dead-level best to bring new 
thinking to this bill.
  They tried mightily, for instance, on the issue of the F-22, because 
they recognized that, if we are putting all of our money in that 
basket, we do not have enough money to provide other high priority 
needs that our defense posture very badly needs.
  They have been partially successful, and I congratulate them for 
that. I recognize that they could not go as far as they needed to go 
because of constraints imposed upon them by the leadership of this 
House. I regret that. I think we should have gone further.
  But I want to take the time of the House today to give my colleagues 
a more basic reason for my concern about this bill. I am not going to 
vote for this bill in the end because I do not believe in supporting 
legislation which in the end conveys a falsehood to the American 
people.
  When we had President Reagan ram his budget through here in 1981 and 
beyond, I opposed those budgets in very large part because they 
promised something that they could not deliver. They promised that they 
would balance the budget in 4 years. Instead, they produced the largest 
deficits in the history of the country.
  When we had the budget agreement in 1997, which was signed by the 
President and pushed through the Congress by then Speaker Gingrich, I 
did not support it and called it a public lie, because, in my view, it 
promised things that would never take place. In fact, time has 
demonstrated that the doubts about that bill were correct.

[[Page H9909]]

  Now, we have a new situation. We have the Republican majority telling 
the country that they do not want to sit down in an omnibus negotiation 
with the President on all remaining bills because, if they did, they 
say we will wind up just like last year where we had some $21 billion 
in emergency spending rammed into last year's omnibus appropriation 
bill.
  First of all, that misreads history, because, in fact, that number 
was driven up substantially by then Speaker Gingrich who insisted that, 
whatever increases we had on the domestic side be matched on the 
military and intelligence side, whether we needed them or not. So they 
wound up spending $21 billion on emergencies.
  But, ironically, this year, this Republican House has already spent 
$24.2 billion and designated them as emergencies. They spent $8.7 
billion on agriculture and declared it an emergency. They spent $7.2 
billion in this bill on defense, declared it emergency. They spent $4.5 
billion on the census. They declared it an emergency. Low-income 
heating assistance, which has only been around for 24 years, they 
declared that an emergency at $1.1 billion. They declared $2.5 billion 
in FEMA as an emergency. They declared half a billion dollars in 
bioterrorism as an emergency for a grand total of $24.2 billion.
  So they have already spent more in emergencies than we spent last 
year. Yet, they claim the reason they do not want to negotiate with the 
President is to avoid that which they have already done. That strange 
logic makes sense only, I guess, on this floor.
  I would also point out that, in this bill, this bill pretends to 
spend $249 billion in outlays. In fact, when we take into account all 
of the gimmicks, it spends $271 billion in outlays. They have $21 
billion worth of gimmicks in order to pretend that the bill is spending 
less than it actually spends.
  It has an emergency designation of $7.2 billion in budget authority 
and $5.5 billion in outlays. It pretends we are going to make $2.6 
billion through spectrum sales. We know that is not going to happen. It 
has an advance appropriation of $1.8 billion.
  Then it simply directs the Congressional Budget Office to pretend 
that the spend-out rate for this bill is going to be $10.5 billion less 
than it will actually be, and they simply tell the Congressional Budget 
Office to ignore reality. That hides another $10.5 billion. Then they 
delay payments to contractors for a few days to save $1.25 billion.
  So we have overall total gimmicks of $21.6 billion. That is not a 
good recommendation for passing this bill.
  One thing we ought to do, no matter what our political differences 
are, no matter what our philosophical differences are, we at least 
ought to level with people about what we are doing. Yet, we are engaged 
in this ridiculous fiction that we are not above the caps and that this 
Congress has not already spent Social Security money for the coming 
year, by engaging in all of these phony accounting gimmicks.
  That is happening, no question about it, at the direct direction of 
the leadership of this House. I think it brings discredit to the entire 
process. It brings discredit to this institution.
  Whatever we pass ought to be on the level. This bill is as far from 
being on the level in terms of being honest with budget numbers as any 
I have seen in a long time. This and the Departments of Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies appropriations 
bill, which has all kinds of similar gimmicks, are two reasons which 
demonstrate that, when it comes to telling the truth, this House gets a 
flunking grade.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do intend to support the rule and the conference 
report, but I wanted to express my concerns about some particular 
provisions concerning U.S. policy in South Asia.
  The conference report language that would give the President 
authority to waive certain sanctions against India and Pakistan, 
including the prohibition on U.S. military assistance to Pakistan 
mandated by the Pressler Amendment, as well as other arms transfer 
controls.
  While I have long supported lifting the economic sanctions against 
India and Pakistan, which the conference report also addresses, I am 
concerned the provisions in the conference report would result in a 
renewal of U.S. arms transfers to Pakistan.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were reminded in a stunning and very 
disturbing way about the potential problems associated with renewing 
our military ties with Pakistan. The Pakistani Army Chief of Staff, in 
a nationally televised address, confirmed that a military coup has 
taken place.
  Prime Minister Sharif has been dismissed and placed under house 
arrest. Troops took over state-run TV and radio stations and closed the 
major airports. Pakistan's army has ruled the country for 25 of its 52-
year history, so Army takeovers have been a relatively common 
occurrence. But this time, the subversion of civilian government means 
that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is under direct control of the military 
leaders, the same hard-line forces who precipitated Pakistan's 
incursion into India or onto India's side of the Line of Control in 
Kashmir earlier this year, greatly heightened tensions in that region.
  I believe the provision in the Defense authorization conference 
report to grant waiver authority for the Pressler amendment essentially 
on a permanent basis is a grave mistake. Combined with expanded waiver 
authority on other provisions of the Arms Export Control Act, this 
opens the door for the administration to renew the U.S. Pakistan 
military relationship.
  Although the Arms Export Control Act waivers would theoretically 
apply both to India and Pakistan, with congressional notification, I am 
concerned that that goal is to renew military assistance to Pakistan. I 
hope that the administration would not help Pakistan militarily thereby 
putting India at risk. Likewise, I hope that any steps against Pakistan 
would not be matched by corresponding actions against India.
  The conference report also provides for extended waiver authority of 
the Glenn Amendment economic sanctions. I have lobbied for a 
suspension, if not an outright appeal, of the Glenn amendment.
  I am glad that the conference took action on the Glenn sanctions. 
Extending the waiver is a positive step, but I just think we could have 
gone a little further.
  I also want to thank the conferees for another positive provision, a 
sense of the Congress resolution that the broad application of export 
controls to nearly 300 Indian and Pakistani entities listed on the so-
called Entities List, which is adopted by the Bureau of Export 
Administration, is inconsistent with the specific national security 
interest of the U.S., and that this list requires refinement.
  There is also language that these export controls should be applied 
only to those entities that make direct and material contributions to 
weapons of mass destruction and missile programs and only to those 
items that so contribute.
  The BXA went way too far in blacklisting entities with little or no 
connection to nuclear or missile programs.
  So, Mr. Speaker, again, I urge that we adopt the conference report 
and the rule, but I am very concerned about the repeal, essentially, of 
the Pressler Amendment.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the rule, and I yield 
back the balance of the time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of the time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
326, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2561) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report 
is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 8, 1999, at page H9651).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
and

[[Page H9910]]

the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).


                             General Leave

  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2561, and that I may include 
tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I first rise to ask the membership for their support for 
this very important bill. It involves the national defense of our 
country. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, 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, which we will consider as we go forward 
with this debate today.
  In particular, I would like to express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee. 
He has been essentially my trainer since I assumed this job, for he 
chaired the committee before I did. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) is not just a great leader of the full Committee on 
Appropriations, but, for his entire career, he has provided the kind of 
leadership that has allowed us to make certain that America is the 
strongest country in the world, as we play a role in leadership for 
peace in that world.
  Mr. Speaker, speaking just for a moment about the bill, this 
legislation does provide for $267.7 billion in discretionary spending 
authority for fiscal year 2000. It meets all budget authority and 
outlay limits set in the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  This bill provides for $17.3 billion more than was appropriated in 
fiscal year 1999 and is $4.5 billion above the administration's 2000 
budget request.
  Let me take just a moment to outline some of the highlights of the 
bill. This legislation provides $73.9 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, that asset being the 
men and women who serve the country in uniform.
  There are essentially 2.25 million men and women serving in the Armed 
Forces, the reserves, and the National Guard. These personnel, as well 
as our colleagues, will be pleased to know that this bill fully funds 
the 4.8 percent pay raise that we have discussed previously.
  Mr. Speaker, with those brief comments outlining the highlights of 
the bill, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, a minute ago, I talked about the gimmicks that were in 
this bill that hide its true spending levels. I would like to continue 
on that theme and put it in context by walking the House through what 
the gimmicks are in all of the appropriations bills that we are 
expected to try to pass.
  First of all, with respect to this bill itself, one of the gimmicks 
in this bill, I guess I would call it the Government Deadbeat Amendment 
for the year. It simply says that the government is going to delay 
payment to defense contractors on the bills that we owe from 12 days to 
17 days, thereby saving $1.2 billion by squeezing that money into the 
next fiscal year.

                              {time}  1100

  I would like to point out when we do that, we are not only affecting 
the cash flow of the United States Government, we are affecting the 
cash flow of thousands of U.S. businesses, and we are affecting their 
balance sheets for the quarter in question and for the entire fiscal 
year. And I think that what that really does is to increase the cost of 
doing business with Uncle Sam.
  So what is the response of these contractors likely to be? The 
response is likely to be that they will factor in that problem the next 
time they write a contract with Uncle Sam. The net effect is it will 
raise the cost of those contracts down the line and, in the end, the 
taxpayers will pay for this foolishness.
  This is just one example of one of the problems in the bill. And as I 
say, I make no criticisms to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
or the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) when I cite this, 
because they had no choice but to include gimmicks like this because 
everybody in this House is under orders from the leadership to hide the 
true levels of spending. And it is not just happening on this bill. It 
is happening on all of them.
  On agriculture we had just in directed scoring alone, not counting 
the emergency designation, just in directed scoring alone, which means 
that they pretend that they are going to spend less than they are 
actually going to spend, they hide $163 million that way.
  In the Commerce-Justice bill, they hide $5.4 billion through a series 
of budgetary gimmicks. In this bill, as I said earlier, they hide $21.5 
billion in spending that way. In the Energy and Water bill that passed, 
they hide $103 million. In the Foreign Operations bill, they hide $159 
million. Interior, the House-passed bill, hides $159 million, as well.
  Then in the Labor Health bill, which was reported by the committee, 
we will have $12.1 billion in assorted gimmicks, some of which their 
own leading presidential contender has denounced as being unfair 
because they balanced the budget on the backs of the poor.
  In Transportation we have $1.4 billion worth of these gimmicks that 
hide the true nature of congressional spending. In Treasury-Post Office 
they hide $151 million. In the VA-HUD bill, which is going to come to 
the floor yet this week, they hide $1.5 billion through what I would 
call these hidden card tricks in a magic show.
  The problem is that it is not just a few suckers paying a quarter who 
are fooled, the entire American public is deceived in the process. That 
means that government-wide, in all of the appropriations bills that we 
are supposed to consider this year, we have over $43 billion in 
gimmicks. When we subtract $14 billion from that, which represents the 
amount of the non-Social Security surplus that we have for the coming 
year on that we are expected to have, that means we have bills $29 
billion over the spending caps in real terms when we do not count the 
gimmicks.
  Now, I want to make clear some of this has happened before. This is 
not unprecedented. But what is unprecedented is the huge amount of game 
playing that is going on.
  I would just suggest, in the end, both parties would be better off if 
we level with the American people and if we simply tell them what the 
true effects are. I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) tried 
to avoid this. He tried to bring a series of bills out of committee 
which were bipartisan in nature and which were a whole lot more honest 
than the bills that we are running to the floor today, but he was cut 
off at the pass by people in his caucus who thought they knew better.
  The result is that the level of consumer fraud in this House has 
reached record levels, and I think that is unfortunate for the country 
and the institution.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of our 
full committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time, and I rise in support of this conference report on our 
appropriations bill for our national security and our intelligence 
programs.
  The gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) deserves a tremendous 
amount of credit for the hard work that he has done in getting this 
bill to the floor.
  Having had many years of experience as a member of this subcommittee, 
this was probably the most difficult year to go to conference on this 
bill that any of us have seen. The gentleman from California (Chairman 
Lewis) has done a really outstanding job and especially since this was 
his first year in that important position as Subcommittee Chairman, and 
I cannot say enough

[[Page H9911]]

good words about the outstanding work that he has done.
  Also, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who is the 
ranking member and the former chairman of this subcommittee, as usual 
has worked with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) to keep this 
bill and any matters relating to national defense or intelligence 
totally nonpolitical, nonpartisan, which is as it should be. Our 
defense issues and our intelligence issues should not be political in 
any way.
  One of the problems that they faced as they produced this bill this 
year and went to conference with the Senate was a 13-year reduction in 
our investment in our national defense. However, at the same time we 
were making these reductions, we were sending our troops to excessive 
deployments in all parts of the world. Many of them, as all of our 
Members know, are still deployed today in places like Bosnia and Kosovo 
and plus the permanent deployments in Europe, Korea, and other places 
like that.
  We have tried to reduce the pressure of these excessive deployments, 
without much success, because the administration believes that anyplace 
in the world that there is an opportunity to send American troops they 
ought to do it. And they do it, and then they send us the bill after 
they spend the money.
  The air war in Kosovo, for example, was a very expensive air war. 
That air war was basically an American air war. We provided the 
airplanes. We provided the pilots. We provided the fuel. We provided 
the munitions. And despite the fact it was a NATO decision to go into 
that war, it was a U.S. war, and we basically paid for it.
  With this bill we are replacing a lot of the munitions, we are fixing 
a lot of the worn out equipment, we are trying to get a decent quality 
of life for those men and women who serve in our military by providing 
them a pay raise. And it is not really enough, but at least it is a 
significant step towards a commitment that some of us have made to get 
our men and women in the military up to a livable wage.
  It is really a shame when we still have to report that there are 
still several thousand Americans in uniform who have to rely on food 
stamps to feed their family.
  So we have to give some recognition to those people, and we have done 
that in this bill in addition to changing the retirement system. This 
is a good bill. And again I say, in my many years of experience on this 
subcommittee, this was the toughest conference meeting; and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) deserve just a tremendous amount of credit in 
what they have been able to do to bring this conference report to the 
floor today.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in great reluctance to oppose the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 2561, the Department of Defense appropriations 
act for the year 2000. I oppose the legislation because it contains 
numerous provisions which taken together represent an erosion of the 
prerogatives of the authorization process and actually raise the 
question of do we need an appropriations process and an authorization 
process if the Committee on Appropriations is going to do both in their 
bill.
  I am not usually down here opposing a defense appropriations bill. I 
always have been and I continue to support a strong national defense.
  Let me tell my colleagues, there is a lot of good in this bill. The 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) pointed out many of the items. There 
is a lot of good in this bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) should be 
commended on the bill that they have produced and for getting this out 
of the conference report.
  But since I have became chairman of the subcommittee on military 
installations and facilities over 4 years ago, I have worked closely 
with Members of both sides of the aisle to find additional resources 
needed to improve and enhance our military housing and infrastructure. 
I have always done so in cooperation with the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  In fact, the military authorization bill on military facilities and 
construction and the appropriations bill on military construction in 
these last 4-plus years have been mirrors of each other because we 
worked so closely together. That is the way it should be. That is not 
the way it is this year.
  That is why it is especially troubling to me to review the conference 
report and see that there are so many provisions that violate the 
necessary and reasonable boundaries between the authorizations and the 
appropriations process.
  First, section 8160 provides a blanket authorization for all military 
construction projects for which funds are appropriated pursuant to the 
Military Construction Appropriation Act, 2000. The legislation 
contained funding or additional funding for 18 military construction 
projects amounting to $110.5 million for which no authorization of 
appropriations was provided in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2000.
  Mr. Speaker, I will include a list of these military construction 
projects at issue following my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, sometimes the appropriations bill is out ahead of the 
authorization bill; and when that happens, a provision like this may 
need to be done, but it is usually done with the idea that we are 
appropriating this subject to the authorization of these projects, 
which we then look at the next year and we get done.
  That is not the case this year. The authorization bill did not 
provide authority for these military construction projects because 
there was a consensus among House and Senate conferees on that bill to 
not break scope to add large number of new projects, given the limited 
resources available to us.
  While these projects may have legitimate military utility, none, in 
my judgment, represent an urgent requirement that could not be 
evaluated during next year's authorization review. It is not unusual 
for an occasional construction project to be appropriated without 
authorization. But, as I said, we do that the following year.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding.
  Let me say this: the questions that he is raising in his statement 
are very legitimate questions, and I must say that the gentleman has 
been more than professional in his dealings with me. I, too, feel that 
we need to work very hard to make sure that we eliminate conflicts 
between the authorizing process where they may exist and the 
appropriations process.
  In this case, I guess the gentleman and I working together would 
probably agree regarding most of the projects that may have been 
authorized. Sometimes elements at a different level than that of the 
gentleman and mine and the House get involved between us. So, in 
connection with that, let me say to the gentleman that I commit to him 
that he and I will work very closely to try to eliminate this kind of 
problem in the future dealing with our leadership and otherwise.
  And with that, while the gentleman is expressing very well his 
concern about this matter, recognizing the broad base of values in this 
bill, I would hope in the final analysis even with this protest I would 
have the vote of this gentleman.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) and I have worked together; but we have been 
friends and colleagues and worked well together for darn near 15 years, 
and that is not going to change because of this bill this year. And we 
have talked about next year and future years and how this ought to be 
done, and we intend to do it differently. I appreciate his comments.
  Second, section 8167 provide new appropriations and authorization for 
an Army Aviation Support facility to support the Army National Guard at 
West Bend, Wisconsin. This MILCON project was not included in either 
the House or the Senate version of the defense authorization bill or in 
the House or Senate version of the military construction appropriations 
bill. It is an entirely new $10 million project that is

[[Page H9912]]

not even included in the Future Years Defense Plan, what is called the 
FYDP, meaning that it is not part of the current Army National Guard 
planning until well after the year 2005.
  That is not the way we do business. The urgency of this project 
escapes me. Its inclusion in the general appropriations bill to support 
the Department of Defense is simply wrong and compounds the troubling 
precedent presented by section 8160.
  Third, section 8163 provides authority for the Secretary of the Air 
Force to accept up to $13 million in contributions from the State of 
New York for the purpose of combining those funds with $12.8 million in 
appropriated funds to consolidate and expand facilities at Rome 
Research Site at New York.

                              {time}  1115

  It sounds like a good deal for the Air Force. The trouble is that the 
Air Force does not support it.
  The President's budget request for the coming fiscal year contained a 
requirement for a $12.8 million facility at the Rome Research Site. The 
conference agreements on the defense authorization bill and the 
military construction appropriations bill both provided the funding 
necessary for the validated MILCON requirement. However, the proposal 
for broader authority to permit the State of New York to contribute 
funding for additional facility improvements was rejected by the 
conferees on the defense authorization bill. While the Department of 
the Air Force fully supported the requirement contained in the 
President's budget, the Secretary of the Air Force declined to support 
the broader facility improvement plan. In a letter dated August 6, 
1999, the Secretary stated that ``The Air Force currently has no 
additional phased consolidation projects for the Rome Research Site in 
the Future Years Defense Plan and does not have options for funding any 
future phases.''
  Finally, section 8168 contains extensive new authorities for the 
Secretary of the Air Force to conduct a ``pilot project'' at Brooks Air 
Force Base, Texas. These authorities fundamentally change the nature of 
installation management. Although the provision was slightly modified 
for the version contained in the Senate-passed defense appropriations 
bill, this is a matter which deserves review by the authorization 
committee, even if it is just a ``pilot project.''
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, I know the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis) and other members resisted the inclusion of many of these 
provisions and I appreciate their efforts. Regretfully, the conferees 
on H.R. 2561 could not withstand the significant pressures to depart 
from the well-established pattern of comity that has governed the 
authorization and appropriations process for military construction in 
recent years. I simply cannot support legislation that in the end 
significantly undermines the authority of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

                     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 8160 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                              Amount in
               State                             Service                              Location                           Project              thousands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona...........................  Army.............................  Fort Huachuca........................  Wastewater Treatment Plant,         6,000
                                                                                                               Phase 1.
California........................  Navy.............................  NAS Lemoore..........................  Gymnasium....................      16,000
District of Columbia..............  Navy.............................  8th & I Barracks.....................  Site Improvements............       4,000
Florida...........................  Navy.............................  Blount Island (Jacksonville).........  Land Acquisition, Phase 1....       5,000
Florida...........................  Air Force........................  MacDill AFB..........................  Mission Planning Center,           10,000
                                                                                                               Phase 1.
Massachusetts.....................  Army National Guard..............  Barnes ANGB..........................  Army Aviation Support               3,933
                                                                                                               Facility.
Michigan..........................  Air National Guard...............  Selfridge ANGB.......................  Replace Fire Crash/Rescue           7,400
                                                                                                               Station.
Minnesota.........................  Air Force Reserve................  Minneapolis/St. Paul ARS.............  Consolidated Lodging                8,140
                                                                                                               Facility, Phase 2.
Montana...........................  Army National Guard..............  Great Falls..........................  Readiness Center.............       4,700
New Jersey........................  Army.............................  Picatinny Arsenal....................  Armament Software Engineering       9,900
                                                                                                               Center, Phase 1.
New Jersey........................  Navy.............................  NWS Earle............................  Security Improvements........       1,250
Ohio..............................  Air National Guard...............  Mansfield Lahm Airport...............  Replace Security Forces             2,700
                                                                                                               Complex.
Ohio..............................  Air National Guard...............  Toledo Express Airport...............  Upgrade Maintenance Complex..       8,400
Ohio..............................  Air Force Reserve................  Youngstown ARS.......................  Apron Runoff/Storm Water/           3,400
                                                                                                               Deicing Collection System.
Pennsylvania......................  Army National Guard..............  Connellsville........................  Readiness Center.............       1,700
South Carolina....................  Navy.............................  NWS Charleston.......................  Child Development Center.....       3,614
Washington........................  Army.............................  Yakima Training Center...............  Tank Trail Erosion                 12,000
                                                                                                               Mitigation, Phase 5.
Korea.............................  Army.............................  Camp Kyle............................  Physical Fitness Center......       4,350
                                                                                                                                            ------------
      Subtotal.............................................................................................................................     112,487
      Offset for Authorization of Appropriations (P.L. 106-65).............................................................................      (2,000)
                                                                                                                                            ============
      Total................................................................................................................................     110,487
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Public Law 106-65, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 provided authorization of appropriations for Military Construction,
  Army in the amount of $2,000,000 for tank trail erosion mitigation at Yakima Training Center, Washington.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report. I want to commend the gentleman from California, the chairman, 
along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the ranking member, for 
putting together what I think is a good quality bill.
  As the gentlemen know, I was not particularly pleased with the 
direction at which we started out with respect to the F-22, but I want 
to say to each of the gentlemen, they have been very straightforward in 
the debate, the dialogue we have had, they have been honest in their 
beliefs and honest with me. I appreciate them working hard to make sure 
that we came up with a fair resolution for the continued research and 
ultimate procurement of a very valued weapons system. It is going to be 
necessary for this system to be purchased if we are going to maintain 
air superiority in the future, and we have seen just most recently in 
the Balkans how critical that is.
  I also want to commend them on the direction in which we are 
continuing to go with respect to the C-17. The C-17 is a very valuable 
airlift mobility asset. I think that we ought to continue to look at 
what we are doing with the C-17 as a model for the purchase of future 
weapons systems. A multiyear buy not only provides our armed forces 
with the best weapons systems available but it also saves the taxpayers 
money, and that is what we are ultimately here and all about. We are 
operating in an entirely different era now from what we have operated 
in in past years because we simply do not have the money to buy 
anything we want in the quantities that we want to buy them.
  I am a little disappointed in where we are going, the direction, with 
the 130s. The Marine Corps asked for a total of four and we were not 
able to provide those. But I know that the gentlemen are going to work 
hard to see if we cannot improve that next year. We are going to put 
the burden back on the Air Force, that if they want these weapons 
systems, they are not going to be able to depend on add-ons in future 
years. They have got to come ask for them. That is the way it ought to 
be.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman on his 
statement, particularly on his comments regarding the C-17. I am very 
pleased and I want to compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for putting in 
the multiyear language for the C-17. Frankly, I do not think 120 of 
these planes is enough. I think we are going to need more than that, 
simply because we do not have enough aircraft for the airlift and 
deployability issue.
  Just yesterday, General Shinseki has come up with this new program 
for the

[[Page H9913]]

Army which is basically heavily reliant on deployability and having all 
this new equipment be able to fit into those C-130s that the gentleman 
mentioned. I look forward to working with him in the days ahead, and I 
appreciate his statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. This year's 
defense appropriations bill provides funding for many critical military 
needs. Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha have ensured that the 
Congress is addressing problems with recruiting and retention and the 
readiness of our Armed Forces. I thank them for their leadership on 
this bill.
  H.R. 2561 includes the final portion of a 4.8 percent pay raise for 
military and defense civilian personnel. This pay raise will address 
the pay gap between those at the Defense Department and comparable jobs 
in the private sector. The bill includes critical funding for Navy ship 
maintenance, an area where increasing backlogs have built up. This 
year's bill includes over $360 million more for ship maintenance 
activities than the appropriations bill for FY 99. And this bill has 
found a critical balance for the modernization priorities of all the 
services. In particular, I am pleased that the conferees were able to 
restore much of the funding in the President's Request for the F-22, 
air dominance fighter. Funding included in the bill will allow work to 
move forward on the F-22 while also providing for additional testing.
  The conferees also approved multiyear procurement authority for the 
FA-18 E&F and the C-17. This will allow us to purchase 222 F-18s for 
the price of 200, a significant savings. And it will allow us to take 
advantage of an unsolicited proposal by Boeing to provide 60 more C-17s 
at an average price that is 25 percent lower than the current model. 
These planes will address critical airlift needs revealed in Kosovo.
  The committee has also ensured that the weaponization of our bomber 
force will continue. Earlier this year, the Air Force provided Congress 
with a bomber road map laying out their plan to weaponize the bomber 
force. It was totally inadequate. Congress has provided an additional 
$100 million for weaponization of the B-2 bomber. These funds will 
allow for the purchase of deployable shelters for the B-2 so that when 
necessary it can deploy closer to the theater of combat. We further 
integrate the B-2 into the larger air campaign by adding Link 16 
connectivity to the B-2 along with the most advanced displays for 
situational awareness. We improve the in-flight replanning capability 
of the B-2's on-board computer systems. At the Air Force's request, we 
pay for the integration of the EGBU 28 bomb in the B-2's bomb bay. And 
we start the process of developing further improvements to the B-2's 
stealth.
  The conferees also provided funding for improvements to B-52's 
situational awareness systems, and for additional conventional bomb 
modules for the B-1B. These investments will ensure that our bomber 
force can continue to be as effective in the future as it was during 
the recent Kosovo conflict.
  Again, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member, and 
urge support of the conference report.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the gentleman for those comments.
  Lastly, just let me say that I appreciate the efforts that we have 
made on the quality of life issues. As I go around and talk to enlisted 
personnel all across the world, I am very impressed with the quality of 
those folks, and the provisions that the gentlemen have made with 
respect to quality of life are going to help those young men and women 
out there.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Department 
of Defense conference report, legislation that deserves overwhelming 
support in this House.
  I want to begin by acknowledging the budgetary challenges that the 
gentleman from California and the Subcommittee on Defense faced in 
assembling this conference report. Yet I also want to thank this 
Congress and acknowledge that the Federal Government has no more 
important responsibility than national defense. This bill is a step in 
the right direction. I commend the gentleman from California for his 
leadership.
  I have been an advocate for a stronger military for many years, but 
it was not until I arrived in Congress that I realized how hollow our 
military has become and how important high-tech weapons are to the 
future of our national security.
  I want to commend the gentleman for his scrutiny of the F-22 Raptor 
program. This is an honorable compromise that does not compromise our 
national security. The F-22 will continue to be developed. That is bad 
news for America's enemies, but it is good news for America's security.
  This conference report also funds other programs critical to our 
national defense, including the V-22 Osprey, the F-16 Falcon, and the 
4BW-4BN, H-1 upgrade programs. I thank the gentleman for his work on 
these priorities.
  In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues that our national 
security can be preserved only when we match our greatest asset, which 
is our troops, with the greatest weapons possible. This bill 
acknowledges that when it comes to national security, it is better to 
be safe than sorry. For that reason, I am proud to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill speaks for itself. All the members have done a 
marvelous job: the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) have been in the trenches; the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) did a tremendous job; the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis) in a very difficult situation. This bill is 
carefully crafted, articulately done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, a very brief comment in 
closing. I would be remiss if I did not just take a moment to express 
my deep appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) 
who is not just a pro at this business but who has been a great leader 
on behalf of national defense for a long, long time. Within our 
subcommittee, he has been the driving force that has allowed us to 
create an environment that is literally nonpartisan as it relates to 
national defense. No bill is more important to the national government, 
to America and indeed to the world than this one. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania has played a key role in making this year's effort such a 
success.
  Beyond that, I would also like to express my appreciation to Greg 
Dahlberg, his fine staff assistant who has worked so closely with us 
this year, Kevin Roper, my staff director, and I must say my own 
personal staff as well as our Appropriations Committee staff. Mr. 
Speaker, I do not know where or how we find such fabulous young people 
who are willing to work endless hours, endless days. They do not know 
weekends. They have done a fantastic job this year to create an 
extraordinary bill.

[[Page H9914]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13OC99.001



[[Page H9915]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13OC99.002



[[Page H9916]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13OC99.003



[[Page H9917]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13OC99.004



[[Page H9918]]

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
conference agreement to H.R. 2561, making FY 2000 appropriations to the 
Department of Defense.
  As a Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I would like 
to take this opportunity to recognize the strong bipartisan leadership 
exhibited by Chairman Lewis and Congressman Murtha in developing this 
conference report.
  Confronted with the difficult task of negotiating an agreement 
between two vastly different bills, their bipartisan approach should 
serve as a model of how this entire body should work.
  We have produced a strong bill that makes a number of critical 
investments in our nation's military, most especially the people who 
serve our country.
  This bill funds a 4.8 percent pay increase for our military personnel 
and an additional $399 million to support DOD's recruiting and 
retention efforts such as elimination of the so-called REDUX policy.
  After many long hours of negotiation, we reached a compromise on the 
F-22 program that will require further testing of the F-22 aircraft and 
make procurement of the aircraft contingent on the F-22 passing certain 
performance tests.
  This action sends a signal to the entire defense establishment that, 
given the demands on today's military forces, we cannot back away from 
some difficult choices concerning our weapons modernization programs.
  This bill carefully balances all facets of our military budget in 
order to sufficiently invest in hardware without shortchanging our 
military personnel.
  For this reason, we should exercise every opportunity to demand 
excellence and efficiency from the money we appropriate.
  I am optimistic that the outcome of this conference will set a 
precedent for how our subcommittees must balance our nation's defense 
spending priorities in today's post-Cold War era.
  We have undertaken a serious debate on how to develop and procure the 
best weapons technology and military equipment available today without 
shortchanging readiness and quality-of-life issues that are equally 
critical to the men and women who serve in our military.
  I would also like to commend the staff from both subcommittees for 
their assistance to my office and, most especially, their tireless work 
in developing this conference agreement. Their professionalism 
throughout this process is to be highly commended.
  I have benefitted from the tremendous expertise and institutional 
knowledge my esteemed colleagues who sit on this Subcommittee and am 
proud to support this conference report.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this agreement and promptly send it 
to the President for this signature which I trust it will secure.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Defense 
bill. I am concerned that this bill does not fit within existing 
priorities and will make it extraordinarily difficult to address budget 
reality. This measure appropriates $267 billion--$4.5 billion over the 
Administration request and $8 billion when all aspects of 2000 spending 
are calculated. Moreover, $5 billion has been added to advance previous 
1999 emergency bills. Overall, this bill easily represents a $20 
billion increase in defense spending for 2000--a year when the overall 
category is supposed to decrease under the caps by some $25-30 billion 
and collectively translates into a $50 billion reduction from other 
programs in the budget!
  H.R. 2561 relies heavily upon budget gimmicks. The GOP uses over $10 
billion in budget slight of hand, suggesting that spending is reduced 
by $1 billion by simply delaying defense contracts, declaring $7.2 
billion in emergency spending to beat the budget caps and claiming over 
$2 billion credit for sale of the electromagnetic spectrum. These 
actions defy common sense and the net effect will result clearly in 
higher spending and this House ought to acknowledge the impact rather 
than invest in scapegoats.
  Surprisingly, the Republicans opted to undermine peacekeeping efforts 
in the Balkans by not providing any funds for the ongoing operations in 
Kosovo. By such action, the GOP has turned their backs on the U.S. role 
in NATO and our involvement within the Balkans. It is imperative that 
this Congress continue to maintain our commitment in this troubled 
region by supporting the important peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. No 
doubt a supplemental spending bill will appear in the near future to 
fund this and other short changed commitments.
  How can we justify appropriating a whopping $4 billion to a national 
missile defense system that is out of line with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic 
Missile Treaty and which on technical grounds has failed to perform? 
This flawed policy at its worst will invite a new arms race, thus 
trashing a treaty for a missile defense system of dubious performance. 
Nonetheless, the Republican led House has found a way to waste federal 
resources on a budget busting and ineffective missile defense when 
reports suggest that soldiers are living in substandard housing and 
quitting in droves.
  This Conference Agreement provides over billions for aircraft not 
requested. Specifically, the funding for the KC 130J Hercules alone is 
$600 million and the National Defense Sealift is $717 million, 
representing $320 million over the Administrations request. Others 
collectively include bombers, fighters and helicopters which well 
exceed $1.1 billion beyond the Presidents request and numerous other 
procurement programs that go off the deep end.
  The most controversial aircraft in this bill is the F-22. This Air 
Force modernization project was constructed to counter the soviet Union 
and is estimated to cost well over $40 billion, or $14-$18 billion a 
year, greater than the cumulative budget of several Federal Departments 
combined a year, when in full production for one aircraft program. 
Fortunately, common sense and reality limited funding for such in this 
bill. However, this measure does provide $1 billion to research and 
develop ``test'' aircraft. No doubt the advocates of the F-22 will live 
to fight another day and will be well fed during the interim.
  Congress should keep in mind that we just don't need smart weapons, 
but smart soldiers and sailors. Our priorities should concentrate on 
investing in the men and women in the Armed Forces. Such paramount 
investment constitutes health care and education opportunities for our 
soldiers and future generations long before they put on a uniform 
Unfortunately, this bill and its distorted priorities precludes 
possible investment in people in other parts of the budget. This 
represents the classic slogan--``guns vs. butter''. We can't have both. 
This measure takes us down the path of investment in hardware, not 
personnel.
  I agree with the important and much needed military pay and pension 
increases and health care for our military personal, but not the 
pension changes. This increased military spending brings big budget 
problems for tomorrow and years ahead. It is my hope that this 
Republican led Congress will face up to the inflated costs inherent in 
the policy blueprint of this measure and get their heads out of clouds 
and feet back on the ground of the real world.
  This measure set us on a policy path where expensive weapon systems 
and hardware costs soak up all the available funds committing us to a 
faulty military policy and short changing key people programs. Such 
people programs are essential to our nation's security both economic 
and militarily.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2561, the 
Defense Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. Spending on the F-22 
is only a small portion of an already bloated Defense Appropriations 
bill. The House of Representatives will vote today on spending $267.8 
billion for the Department of Defense. The GOP is unable to come up 
with adequate funding for Labor-HHS, yet they have mysteriously come up 
with $267.8 billion for defense spending. I have a suggestion for the 
leadership--cut wasteful defense programs.
  The Air Force can expect to receive approximately $1 billion to 
develop ``test'' F-22 aircraft and $1.2 billion for research and 
development on the plane. Lockheed Martin's K Street lobbyists are 
certain to get a bonus in their stocking at Christmas. Thanks to 
Lockheed's relentless lobbying efforts and shrewd production prowess, 
the company was able to convince House and Senate conferees that the 
program really is worthwhile.
  The Department of Defense has spent $18 billion on the F-22 since the 
mid-1980's. The project is too expensive and simply not needed. The 
program was initiated in 1981 to meet the threat of next generation 
Soviet aircraft. However, that threat no longer exists. The war in 
Kosovo is the perfect example of why the U.S. does not need the F-22. 
The current fleet of F-15s and F-16s demonstrated U.S. dominance in the 
air in Kosovo. Proponents of the F-22 claim that the aircraft is far 
superior than the F-15 in air to air combat. This may be true, but we 
never had air to air combat in Kosovo and we don't need anything 
superior. The Yugoslav Air Force never engaged the U.s. in air to air 
combat because they would have faced defeat much sooner. No nation in 
the world comes close to challenging U.S. air dominance. But there are 
many nations whose children's elementary and secondary school aptitude 
tests far exceed those of the U.S.
  We must ask ourselves, where are our priorities? When is classroom 
size reduction, providing health insurance to 11 million children and 
full prescription drug coverage to 40 million elderly going to be a 
priority for this Congress? It is deplorable and shameful that the 
wealthiest industrial nation cannot afford quality health care or 
adequate education. Yet at the same time, our nation is able to boast 
of its air dominance and insist on more.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in saying, ``enough is enough.'' I 
urge a no vote on H.R. 2561.

[[Page H9919]]

  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2561, the 
defense appropriations conference report, but with reservations. I 
voted for this conference report because I believe in a strong national 
defense and I support the men and women who risk their lives to defend 
our nation. I am, however, strongly opposed to the manner in which this 
conference report funds these important functions. I believe in a 
strong defense, not the budget gimmicks that the majority uses to hide 
the actual amount of spending in the bill.
  I voted in favor of a 4.8 percent pay increase for military personnel 
who risk their lives for this country, not an agreement that shifts 
spending of an estimated $10.5 billion our of fiscal year 2000 and 
pushes personnel payments into the next fiscal year. I voted in favor 
of our commitment to providing the strongest defense in the world, not 
delaying over $1.3 billion in payments to defense contractors. I voted 
in favor of new defense technologies that will save lives, not for 
projects like the F-22 that my colleague from California, the Chairman 
of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee says, ``has become a burden 
on the rest of the military.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am offended by the manner in which this Congress is 
proceeding with its fiscal duties. Shifting $10.5 billion of FY 2000 
dollars to FY 2001, delaying contractor payments into the next fiscal 
year and declaring a $7.2 billion in ``emergency'' is not being 
fiscally responsible and it is not being honest with the American 
people about adherence to budget caps.
  On September 29th, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office 
released a letter stating that Congress has already broken the budget 
caps and has already consumed over $18 billion of the Social Security 
surplus. Mr. Speaker, as we move forward in the appropriations process, 
I hope both parties will work together to preserve and protect Social 
Security and Medicare, while providing for our country's basic needs. I 
hope the leadership will choose to keep faith with Americans and stop 
resorting to these kinds of budget gimmicks, which only seek to deceive 
people about the federal budget.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2561, the 
Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations bill. This bill 
will provide $267 billion for defense programs which is sufficient to 
meet the needs of today's military. However, I am concerned that $18 
billion of this bill has been designated as ``emergency spending'' and 
would therefore not be subject to the budgetary caps included in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I support providing additional resources 
to the Department of Defense, but I believe that we must be honest with 
the American people in reconciling our need for additional defense 
spending with our ability to do so under the existing budget caps.
  I would like to highlight an important project included in this bill 
that would provide $10 million for the Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Medical Services (DREAMS) program. This is the third installment on 
funding for DREAMS that would help to save lives and reduce health care 
costs. In 1997, Congress provided $8 million for DREAMS and in 1999, 
$10 million for DREAMS. These federal funds have been leveraged with 
State of Texas funding, financial support from the National Institutes 
of Health and the ANA and philantrophic sources.
  DREAMS is a joint Army research project with the University of Texas 
Houston Health Science Center and Texas A&M University System. The 
DREAMS project will demonstrate in both civilian and military terms how 
to attend to wounded soldiers from remote locations during emergency 
situations. The project will fund three different research projects, 
including Emergency Medical Services (EMS), diagnostic methods and 
therapies for shock injuries, and chemical as well as biological 
warfare defense.
  The EMS program will use emergency helicopters to fly directly to 
injured persons and treat these individuals after a trauma injury. 
Using the fiber-optic traffic monitoring system already being used in 
Houston, the DREAMS project will help helicopters to reach their 
victims faster. The second part of this EMS program is to collect real-
time patient data and relate this information back to trauma physicians 
to make immediate diagnosis and recommended treatments.
  The chemical and biological warfare program will help to develop 
chemical sensor tests to treat victims on toxic substances. In 
addition, DREAMS in developing mechanisms for the biological 
decontamination and detoxification of these chemical agents. The City 
of Houston is an ideal location for these tests because of that large 
number of petrochemical and industrial facilities located in our area.
  The diagnostic methods and therapies program will determine possible 
applications to treat patients during the ``golden hour'' following a 
traumatic injury. These methods will include mechanisms to treat the 
decreased blood flow that is common in many trauma patients. This 
project is also exploring how to prevent cell death as a result of 
traumatic injury. The DREAMS project will yield new results and 
procedures to help patients become stabilized before sending them to 
trauma centers.
  I am pleased that Congress has included this vitally important 
research funding and urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
conference report for Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000. This 
bill is replete with budget gimmicks that seek to mask the true cost of 
funding the Department of Defense, such as declaring billions of 
spending to be an arbitrary ``emergency'' and delaying payments to 
defense contractors. Unfortunately, those gimmicks cannot hide the fact 
that this bill exceeds the Pentagon's request by $8 billion, with much 
of that money spent on unnecessary and even unrequested projects such 
as $264.3 million for the C-130 airplane and $375 million to build the 
LHD-8 ship in Mississippi. This bill also does not meet our commitments 
to fund current peacekeeping operations or reconstruction in Kosovo. 
This sends a disturbing message to the rest of the world that we are 
not willing to keep our promises to our allies in times of crisis. For 
these reasons, among others, I am voting against this conference 
report.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2561, the FY 
2000 Defense Appropriations Bill.
  There are a number of good things in the bill and I applaud the 
Members of the Subcommittee for their efforts. I applaud the inclusion 
of $165 million to boost the military pay raise to 4.8 percent, 
increasing the 4.4 percent raise that was funded in the FY 1999 
emergency supplemental.
  While I intend to vote for the package today, I remain extremely 
concerned about the manner in which this bill fits into the overall 
budget picture and about the number of budgetary gimmicks included in 
the legislation.
  The bill is $3.8 billion over the President's request. The bill 
provides $267.1 billion for various defense programs in FY2000, $269.7 
billion if spectrum asset sales are excluded. Of this amount, $7.2 
billion of routine Operation and Maintenance appropriations are 
designated as ``emergency'' for budget scoring purposes, and an 
additional $10.5 billion in outlays are not counted under the budget 
caps due to ``directed scoring'' to the CBO by House leadership.
  While it is not clear if the President will sign this bill, I am 
hopeful that he will examine this legislation in the context of the 
important needs our government has left to fund for the next fiscal 
year.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, when combined with defense appropriations in 
the Military Construction and Energy and Water bills, the Defense 
Appropriations Conference Report for FY 2000 brings total defense 
funding to $289 billion, $7.4 billion more than the President 
requested. This level of spending is above the ceiling imposed by the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997; and since the on-budget surplus of $14.4 
billion in FY 2000 has been committed already by other appropriations 
bills, this spending level could lead to borrowing from the Social 
Security surplus in FY 2000.
  To avoid the appearance of being over the caps and into Social 
Security, the conference report resorts to a number of ``gimmicks.'' It 
classifies $9 billion in new budget authority as ``emergency 
spending.'' It directs that outlays in FY 2000 be scored at $10.5 
billion less than CBO estimates. As an offset to extra spending, it 
includes non-germane provisions that direct spectrum sales in FY 2000, 
although CBO deems them improbable, and it scores the proceeds of the 
spectrum sales at $2.6 billion, although CBO disputes any proceeds in 
FY 2000.
  I support most of the defense spending in this agreement, but not the 
``gimmicks.'' This is no way to budget. This report allows ``spending 
caps'' and ``emergency spending'' to mean whatever the majority says 
they mean. It disregards CBO's scorekeeping, despite its track record 
for accuracy, and by fiat inserts outlay estimates of its own. These 
rules, disciplines, and procedures have helped us achieve the first 
budget surpluses in thirty years. If we treat these rules in the 
cavalier way this report treats them, our on-budget surpluses are not 
destined to last long, and we may soon find ourselves borrowing again 
from Social Security.
  This conference agreement provides $269.4 billion in discretionary 
budget authority (BA) for defense in FY 2000. This includes $9.0 
billion in emergency funding and $2.6 billion in funding that is 
``offset'' by spectrum sales (more details below). Of the $9.0 billion 
in emergency funding, $1.8 billion was previously appropriated in the 
Kosovo Emergency Supplemental bill for military pay raises. In 
conference, $7.2 billion in Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding 
already included in the House bill was designated as an emergency. The 
purpose of this increase was not to increase the total amount of 
defense funding

[[Page H9920]]

(the conferees actually cut the House bill). Rather, it was to raise 
the caps and create room for an increase to the allocations of other 
subcommittees, such as Labor-HHS-Education.
  According to the Appropriations Committee's press release, the gross 
total of the bill (including emergencies) is almost $900 million less 
in BA (and $3.3 billion less in outlays) than the House-passed version 
of the bill, but $17.3 billion more in BA than the 1999 appropriated 
level excluding emergencies. According to the press release, the 
following accounts were increased. (Figures are dollar increases 
compared to President's request except Military Personnel.):
  O&M--$1.0 billion.
  Procurement--$1.1 billion.
  R&D--$3.2 billion.
  Military Personnel--4.8% pay raise vs. 4.4% pay raise.


                      Budget Gimmicks in the Bill

  Emergency Declaration: Besides the $1.8 billion for ``emergency pay'' 
contained in the Kosovo Supplemental, the conference report declares 
$7.2 billion BA for routine O&M activities to be an emergency even 
though these activities were not declared emergencies in either the 
original House or Senate bills. This gimmick is intended to help other 
subcommittees, not the defense subcommittee, because the emergency will 
increase the total caps, and money is fungible. To facilitate this kind 
of chicanery, the Senate has adopted a new rule, which requires 60 
votes to declare a non-defense emergency, but only a simple majority to 
declare a defense emergency.
  Delaying Contractor Payments: The conference report included two 
provisions, sections 8175 and 8176, not found in either the original 
House or Senate bills, that relax the time table for Pentagon payments 
to defense contractors by an extra amount of time ranging from five to 
seven days longer than current practice, depending on the type of 
payment. This will result in slipping about $1.250 billion in outlays 
from FY 2000 into FY 2001.
  Scoring Adjustments: Several adjustments have been made to CBO's 
scoring of appropriations bills that contain defense funding:
  (1) Outlay ``plugs'' or ``directed scorekeeping'' total $10.533 
billion. As explained below, this consists of $9.7 billion in general 
scorekeeping of outlays and $833 million related to contingent 
emergencies.
  (2) $2.6 billion has been added as a ``credit'' for provisions that 
direct the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a spectrum 
auction.
  CBO does not believe that the spectrum auction of television 
frequencies can be completed in 2000, and scores its revenue potential 
at zero for FY 2000. If the spectrum sales were to occur on a more 
reasonable schedule, CBO believes they would only raise $1.9 billion, 
not $2.6 billion. The $9.7 billion plug is supposed to represent the 
difference between OMB and CBO scoring of the President's budget, but 
that figure includes the difference in contingent emergencies between 
OMB and CBO. Nevertheless, CBO is ordered to count contingent 
emergencies twice for a total of $10.533 billion in ``plugged 
outlays,'' $833 million more than the discrepancy between CBO and OMB.

                           SUMMARY OF GIMMICKS
                        [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         BA      Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directed scorekeeping or plugs......................     0.000    10.533
Spectrum sales......................................     2.600     2.600
New ``emergencies''.................................     9.038     6.591
Delayed contractor payments.........................     0.000     1.250
                                                     -------------------
      Total.........................................    11.638    20.974
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         budget variance report

  The following table compares current defense spending levels with 
levels specified in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997:

COMPARING DEFENSE PLANS: BBA VS. PRESIDENT'S CURRENT PLAN VS. REPUBLICAN
                               RESOLUTION
                        [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2000-2002
                                        2000    2001    2002     total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997
 (BBA):
  Budget authority...................   277.3   281.9   289.7     848.8
  Outlays............................   275.7   272.8   273.9     822.4
President's current plan:
  Budget authority...................   283.4   301.3   303.2     888.0
  Outlays............................   280.3   284.4   293.3     858.0
Republican FY 2000 budget resolution:
  Budget authority...................   291.8   304.8   309.3     905.9
  Outlays............................   283.4   288.9   293.4     865.7
President above/below BBA (squeeze on
 NDD):
  Budget authority...................     6.2    19.4    13.5      39.1
  Outlays............................     4.6    11.6    19.4      35.6
Republican above/below BBA (squeeze
 on NDD):
  Budget authority...................    14.6    22.9    19.6      57.1
  Outlays............................     7.7    16.1    19.5      43.3
Republican above/below President
 (squeeze on NDD):
  Budget authority...................     8.4     3.5     6.1      18.0
  Outlays............................     3.1     4.5     0.1       7.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: (1) The BBA has been adjusted for emergencies, both released and
  anticipated to be released. (2) The President's plan is from the June
  Mid-Session Review and includes emergencies, both released and
  anticipated to be released. (3) the Republican Budget Resolution has
  been adjusted for emergencies, both released and anticipated to be
  released. (4) the 1998 and 1999 levels in both the President's plan
  and the Republican plan are per OMB, actual for 1998 and estimated for
  1999. (5) All emergencies are per OMB estimates.

  This bill departs from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and leaves in 
its wake a lot of budget problems. For instance, in August 2000, when 
CBO and OMB do their reviews of the budget, outlays could easily be 
tracking CBO's projections, in which case outlays would be $11.6 
billion greater than the estimates plugged into this report. Or 
consider the next fiscal year, FY 2001. The discretionary spending cap 
will be coming down in FY 2001 while defense spending will be going up, 
up by $22.9 billion in BA and $16.1 billion in outlays above the 
Balanced Budget Act ceilings. Gimmicks may get this bill over the 
threshold, but they may not last the full fiscal year, and may make 
budgeting in the next fiscal year far more difficult. This is the wrong 
way to run a budget.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 372, 
nays 55, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 494]

                               YEAS--372

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     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)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush

[[Page H9921]]


     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     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
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--55

     Ackerman
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ganske
     Green (WI)
     Hefley
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Shays
     Stark
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Carson
     Danner
     Jefferson
     Kennedy
     McCarthy (NY)
     Scarborough
     Wise

                              {time}  1146

  Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, RANGEL, and OLVER, and Ms. McKINNEY 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida and Mr. UDALL of Colorado changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 494, the 
conference report on H.R. 2561, the Defense Appropriation Act of FY 
2000, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, due to circumstances beyond 
my control, I was unable to vote on the Defense Appropriations 
Conference Report. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on 
rollcall vote No. 494.

                          ____________________