[Pages H782-H800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1124, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1996

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 340 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 340

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (S. 1124) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to
prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the
Armed Forces, 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. Inglis of South Carolina). The gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished 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. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 340 is a rule
providing for the consideration of the conference reports to accompany
S. 1124, the fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization bill.
The rule waives points of order against the conference report and
against its consideration and was reported out of the Committee on
Rules by a unanimous voice vote.
As Members will recall, Mr. Speaker, the previous Defense
authorization bill was vetoed by the President. In his veto message the
President cited a handful of objections. We believe they have been
accommodated in this legislation and, thus, it is hoped that the
President will, therefore, now sign this bill.
It would be ultimately shortsighted and inexcusably reckless, Mr.
Speaker, to underestimate the national security dangers that face the
United States. Yes, the Soviet Union collapsed, but Russia remains
engaged in serious internal struggles that will decide its future
course of behavior in the world community. China is acquiring wealth at
an extraordinary rate. Some project that it may surpass the United
States in gross domestic product by early in the next century. And with
wealth inevitably comes vast military power.
North Korea. Though the Clinton administration is providing massive
amounts of oil and technical assistance to North Korea, that regime
remains an enemy of the United States. The regime in Tehran is a deadly
enemy of the United States, Mr. Speaker, with enormous oil reserves.
And there remain many other enemies of this great Nation throughout the
world.
There are many who would love to see the United States on its knees,
our youth destroyed by drugs, our economy shattered by debt. Here in
this hemisphere the regime in Havana, Mr. Speaker, is one such
implacable enemy of the American people, though many in this city and
even in this House do not see it that way.
I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] by the
way, for supporting consistently strong sanctions against that regime,
like we are now in this Congress trying to do against the regime in
Tehran as well.
The Cuban dictator has a network of terrorists and drug traffickers
at his command throughout this hemisphere, in Colombia, in Peru and
Bolivia, in

[[Page H783]]
Guatemala. In Mexico, we all know the subcommander Marcos in Chiapas in
Mexico, he is subcommander so as to not offend his commander, Castro.
In Venezuela the Cuban regime maintains very close ties with Colonel
Chavez who attempted a coup d'etat in recent years and remains intent
on doing so again. There is no doubt nevertheless that the Cuban
dictator at this point is bankrupt. But if he survives, Mr. Speaker, 2
or 3 more years, the pendulum toward the neoliberal or conservative
governments throughout this hemisphere that has characterized the last
decade, that pendulum may very well swing the other direction toward
statism. And if that happens and if the Cuban dictator is able to
obtain the international credits that he is so desperately seeking and
that some in this House are supporting, he would no longer be a
bankrupt tyrant with a network of terrorists and drug traffickers
throughout this hemisphere but, rather, a tyrant with economic means
and a network of terrorists and drug traffickers throughout this
hemisphere.
That would constitute a major threat not only to all the governments
of this hemisphere that are now curiously enough appeasing that
dictator in the hope that he will be nice to them but also a major
threat even to the national security of the United States.
I only wish, Mr. Speaker, that this administration would be capable
of seeing that reality instead of opposing sanctions against Castro and
sending emissaries to meet with the dictator to work out a little
secret deal with him. But irrespective of that, Mr. Speaker, we need a
strong national defense. And this bill, despite the changes that we
have had to make to it, I believe is a necessary ingredient in a strong
posture for the United States of America.
I would like to commend the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spence], chairman, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums],
ranking member, along with the dedicated staff of the entire Committee
on National Security and its membership for their efforts in bringing
forth this second defense authorization.
This renegotiated conference report achieves many important goals,
including improving the quality of life for military personnel and
reforming the Federal procurement system.
Mr. Speaker, I support both this rule and the conference report. I
would urge adoption of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support
of the conference report.
Every Member understands that it is necessary that the House consider
this conference report because the first DOD conference report was
vetoed by the President and the Congress was unable to override.
I commend the Committee on National Security for coming forward with
this new conference agreement which addresses several of the
President's strongest objections. While there are still provisions of
the agreement which are objectionable to the administration, I believe
the removal of three provisions, language relating to the establishment
of a national missile defense system, the President's ability to deploy
U.S. troops in peacekeeping operations and the requirement that the
President submit supplemental funding requests for contingency
operations will allow the President to sign this bill into law.
I congratulate the conferees for their spirit of compromise and their
willingness to do what is necessary to ensure that the other critical
programs and projects in this bill become law.
Mr. Speaker, I support this conference agreement because it like its
predecessor makes available funding for the B-2 stealth bomber. The B-2
is an important component of our overall defense system and I commend
the conferees for their continued steadfast support of this program.
In addition, I am especially gratified that the conference agreement
contains initiatives to accelerate high priority quality-of-life
projects for the men and women of our armed forces and their families.

{time} 1300

These projects are every bit as important to our defense system as
are the many weapons systems found in the bill. And the conference
report also ensures that readiness remains a top funding priority.
Again the conferees have provided us with an excellent bill, and I urge
every Member to support it.
This rule, Mr. Speaker, is a noncontroversial rule. It provides for
the expedited consideration of this conference report in a manner that
is accepted practice and custom in the House of Representatives.
However, I am very concerned that my Republican colleagues have begun a
new practice that is contrary to the accepted practice and custom of
the House. That new practice, which we have seen in other rules brought
to the floor in recent weeks, has the effect of denying the minority
the rights they are assured by the rules of this body.
My Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Rules protested this new
practice earlier this month when we met to consider three continuing
appropriations, and the Republican majority reported rules which not
only closed the continuing resolutions to amendment but also denied the
minority their guaranteed right to offer a motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I include a letter signed by the four Democrats on the
Committee on Rules to Chairman Solomon at this point in the Record:

House of Representatives,

Committee on Rules,

Washington, DC, January 23, 1996.
Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon,
Chairman, Committee on Rules, Capitol Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: While in the minority, you and your
Republican colleagues staunchly defended the minority's right
to offer a motion to recommit. On the first day of the 104th
Congress, the Republican majority made good on its promise to
expand that right. But it seems we've come a long way since
those days.
Exactly one year and a day after adopting the opening day
rules change to guarantee the minority's right to offer an
expanded motion, the Republican majority found a way to break
its commitment to protect even the simple motion to recommit.
On Friday, January 5, 1996, the Republican majority used a
transparent parliamentary ploy--not once, not twice, but
three times--to circumvent the rule assuring the minority a
motion to recommit. Clause 4(b) of rule XI, first adopted in
1909, prohibits the Rules Committee from reporting a
resolution that prevents the minority from offering a motion
to recommit. Specifically, clause 4(b) prohibits the Rules
Committee from reporting a rule that ``would prevent the
motion to recommit from being made as provided in clause 4 of
rule XVI'' and clause 4 of rule XVI states that the motion to
recommit will be in order ``after the previous question shall
have been ordered on the passage of a bill or joint
resolution.''
On that day, the Republican majority in the House approved
three extraordinarily restrictive rules providing for initial
consideration of three new approaches to continuing
appropriations. Ordinarily, a new bill or joint resolution
would be introduced providing continuing appropriations.
Instead, the House considered House amendments to Senate
amendments to unrelated House bills. In one particularly
egregious case, the rule hijacked a Senate amendment to a
House bill dealing with the National Marine Fisheries Service
lab to attach a continuing appropriation. The obvious and
intended effect in all three cases was to circumvent the
prohibition against the Committee on Rules reporting a rule
that prevents a motion to recommit on initial consideration
of a new idea.
We are writing to protest the manner in which these items
were considered. We are writing to protest the outrageous and
arrogant stifling of debate and alternative approaches.
The first rule, House Resolution 334, provided for
consideration in the House of an unusual continuing
appropriation amendment to a Senate clean and simple CR
amendment to an unrelated bill, H.R. 1643, extending most-
favored-nation duty status for products from Bulgaria. Before
this Congress, the House would have ignored the Senate
amendment to H.R. 1643. The Senate amendment initiated
continuing appropriations. The House--until this time--has
guarded its prerogative to initiate appropriations,
blueslipping Senate appropriation bills and simply not taking
up Senate amendments to House bills where such amendments
initiated appropriation measures. By taking up H.R. 1643 with
the Senate amendment, the House has now signaled its
acceptance of the Senate infringement on the custom and
privilege of the House to initiate spending.
The next two rules, House Resolutions 336 and 338, went a
step further. Not satisfied with blocking all amendments
including the motion to recommit, the GOP majority denied any
separate debate on the House amendment. Adoption of the rule
constituted adoption of the House amendment. Once the

[[Page H784]]
House passed the rule, the whole matter was automatically sent to the
Senate without further debate or votes.
Making the vote on the rule also the vote on the policy
precludes any serious discussion of the process. The
seriousness of the issues involved--continuing appropriations
and the threat of another costly government shutdown--
overwhelmed any debate about the motion to recommit. If any
fair-minded Republicans wanted to protest this rule (and its
repudiation of the Republican expansion of the motion to
recommit) they could not do so without fear of contradicting
the Speaker's policy on continuing appropriations. The
Republican freshmen have learned the Speaker's vengeance on
such matters will be swift and direct.
We were surprised that you would agree to a procedure that
diminishes the traditions and prerogatives of the House and
tramples on the minority rights you championed for so long
when you were in the minority. We are deeply disappointed
that the Rules Committee under your chairmanship would
participate in this unseemly circumvention of clause 4(b) of
rule XI and we hope that such actions will not be repeated.
Sincerely,
John Joseph Moakley.
Martin Frost.
Anthony Beilenson.
Tony Hall.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, in this letter my colleagues and I protest
what we consider to be outrageous and arrogant stifling of debate and
express our hope that these actions will not be repeated. I believe our
position is meritorious and supports the best interests of the House of
Representatives as a constitutional institution. Consequently, Mr.
Speaker, this letter should be made a part of the permanent record.
Mr. Speaker, I found it quite interesting that no Republican Member
defended the minority's right to offer the motion to recommit earlier
this month. I found it very sad that a party that has so strongly and
so correctly defended the rights of the minority now practices a brand
of political gamesmanship that stifles all debate and dissent.
I bring this subject to the attention of the House because the
Committee on Rules is scheduled to meet today to consider another
continuing resolution. I hope that my Republican colleagues will not
perpetuate this practice and will allow the House an opportunity to
debate the issues of the day.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule. I support this rule
because it is fair and because it provide for the consideration of
important programs of the Department of Defense. But I hope that when
we meet in the future to consider rules reported by the Republican
majority of the Committee on Rules that the rights of the minority are
protected and assured.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], my chairman
and leader of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I would rise in support of this rule. I would urge its
adoption so that we can get on with the debate and passage of this
long-awaited essential legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record my response to my good friend
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] as follows:

House of Representatives,

Committee on Rules,

Washington, DC, January 24, 1996.
Hon. John Joseph Moakley,
Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Rules, The
Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Joe: Thank you for your letter of January 23rd
cosigned by your minority committee colleagues expressing
concerns over three recent rules providing for the
disposition of Senate amendments to House bills and the fact
that these rules denied the minority a motion to recommit.
As you know, the guarantee of a motion to recommit with
instructions was one of the House Rules reforms that we
adopted on the opening day of this Congress because it was
something we felt strongly about when it was denied to us on
numerous occasions when we were in the minority. However, as
you are also aware, the guarantee only applies to rules that
provide for the consideration of bills and joint resolutions,
and does not apply to simple or concurrent resolutions, or to
motions to dispose of amendments.
The three rules to which you refer all involved emergency
spending measures that were considered just prior to our
recess earlier this month. All three measures enjoyed
widespread, bipartisan support given the need to reopen the
government.
However, I fully understand your concern that this
procedure could be abused in the future as a way to deny the
minority a motion to recommit with instructions. As probably
the leading champion of that right when we were in the
minority I can assure you that I will continue to safeguard
that right, just as I insisted that we enshrine this
guarantee in our House Rules when we came into the majority.
I have therefore transmitted a copy of your letter to the
Majority Leader and other members of our leadership, together
with my views that the procedure for disposing of Senate
amendments should only be used where circumstances clearly
warrant it.
Sincerely,
Gerald B. Solomon,
Chairman.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I do believe the gentleman protests too
much. No rules of the House have been waived. We have followed
procedure, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the gentleman sitting next to me that is
managing this rule, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Miami, FL, he and his
family have for so many years been a bulwark of defense against the
spread of international, deadly, atheistic communism throughout the
world but especially in the Western Hemisphere, in Cuba and Central
America. I want to commend him for his outstanding effort on behalf of
himself and his family.
Once again, I would like to commend Chairman Spence and his
outstanding staff for the tireless work they have put in on this bill,
especially during the very long conference period. Chairman Spence and
his very, very able staff are among the very best in this entire House.
They put in yeoman hours on this effort.
Mr. Speaker, we must pass this legislation today and the President
must sign this bill into law. This authorization bill is the first step
in restoring our defenses to the level that should be in place for the
world's only superpower today. We all know that the defense budget has
endured 10 years of cuts, 10 years in a row. This must stop and this
bill stops it dead in its tracks. That is why I support the
legislation.
Furthermore, the bill helps to improve the lives of our men and women
that serve in the armed forces of the United States, with increases in
pay, with basic housing allowance increases, with health care
provisions, and many other items that help make a better life for these
young men and women and their families that serve in the military
today.
Mr. Speaker, there is no more important bill in our annual process
than the defense authorization bill. After all, that is why we have a
republic of States. It is for the primary purpose of providing for a
national defense for these States of ours, and this year's bill is
critical if America is to maintain its leadership role in the world, as
I think it should. And as our young men and women serve in Bosnia, we
must give them all the support we can even though many of us oppose the
policy that put them there. This bill is a start towards that.
Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the President would sign this bill, many
of us have had to compromise over several important issues. But in
Ronald Reagan's words, he used to say to me, ``Jerry, politics is the
art of compromise. You cannot always have it your own way.'' And
certainly this is a proof positive that we are bending over backwards
to try to cooperate.
The reason I am supporting this bill is because we have a level of
funding that is going to help restore the defenses of this Nation, and
that is the only reason, because I really do object to several of the
provisions that have been compromised in it. But I would urge every
Member to come over here today, to vote for this rule and then vote for
this very vital piece of legislation.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss], my distinguished colleague on the Committee on
Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], for his generosity and
courtesy in yielding me the time. I rise very much in support of this
rule. After careful consideration and looking at the legislation, I
support that as well.

[[Page H785]]

I think it is important in the spirit of cooperation, unity, and
togetherness when we have the opportunity to move forward, that we do
that, and I think this fills that role. This is a very important piece
of legislation.
There are three issues that are at stake today. One is the question
of our missile defense national security; that is a subject we are
going to give considerable more attention to. The other is the question
of the U.N. chain of command; that is in the newspapers today. That is
a subject we are going to be hearing more about and talking about on
the floor.
Another is the cost of peacekeeping that the President alluded to
last night. That is an area we have to focus great attention on,
because adventures, or perhaps misadventures as we have had in places
like Haiti, have an extraordinary cost to them. We are up in the range
of about $3 billion now on that, and we do not have any way to really
address those kinds of issues--$3 billion here, $3 billion there for
what is loosely called ``peacekeeping'' or ``peacemaking'' suddenly
adds up to some serious money and is a big issue in the question of how
we do our national defense and our national security.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, who was wounded
and imprisoned by enemies of this Nation while he fought to defend our
Nation and our people.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support our
Armed Forces.
Although there are many good things in this bill, changes made in
this latest version are not in our Nation's best interests. The most
egregious omission is that it now allows the President to put American
troops under U.N. command.
Under U.N. control the world's best fighting force would be put into
the hands of an irresponsible, incompetent organization that is fraught
with unnecessary bureaucracy and fiscal crises.
The United Nations record is a disgrace. Peacekeeping missions
continue to grow in number, while success declines and its purposes and
goals are ill-defined at best. There is no leadership.
Our service men and women put their lives on the line to protect
freedom and serve our Nation. It is our responsibility to ensure their
safety. We would be shirking that responsibility by allowing someone
from the United Nations--who knows nothing about the U.S. military--to
assume control of our troops.
Once again I find myself wondering why this administration and those
on the other side of the aisle have fought so hard against any effort
to protect our troops from being placed under U.N. control.
How can any American really be committed to any questionable
organization such as the United Nations. I am amazed that any
administration could have such little concern for our Nation's
military. I would hope that the decision to take this important
provision out of this bill will be reconsidered in the future. The
safety and future of our Armed Forces depend upon it.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dornan], a great American patriot who we are honored to
have serve in this Chamber.
(Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, this cannot be a happy day for big-taxing
and big-spending politicians. Here is the New York Times. It says,
``Clinton Offers Challenge to Nation, Declaring Era of Big Government
Is Over.'' That on the Gray Lady, America's so-called paper of record,
is amazing.
Here is the great Washington Times, ``Clinton Concedes End of Big
Government Era.''
And here is the Washington Post, the alleged paper of record inside
the beltway. ``Clinton Embraces GOP Themes in Setting Agenda.'' The era
of big Government is over.
As I said in a 1-minute speech this morning, Mr. Clinton did what he
did in all of the State of the Union speeches, tearing pages from
Ronald Reagan's book, put heroes in the gallery, military heroes, a
year-ago Medal of Honor winners who, one gentleman won a Medal of Honor
7 days after his 17th birthday on the sands and ground-up lava of Iwo
Jima. Last night he had sitting in the front row here, General Barry
McCaffrey, who when he was a lieutenant and a young captain in Vietnam,
Clinton could not gag out the word ``Vietnam,'' won three Purple
Hearts.
He was the general who in the White House 2 years and 10 months ago
was told, ``We don't speak to people in uniform here.'' They did not
know he was the commander of the 24th Infantry Division Mechanized, the
point of the spear, the Hail-Mary left hook that broke through into
Iraq and around Kuwait and liberated that poor besieged nation.
Pointing to heroes and then taking away their pay raises and their
benefits is not going to work with the American people.
As I look at my Clinton countdown watch today, I see it is 362 days
to the inauguration of the 43d President of the United States, a
brandnew one; and subtracting the 76 days from the election to the
inauguration, that means in 286 days, Mr. Clinton is going to be asked
to account for the two things that he demanded be removed from this
excellent defense authorization bill. He said, we are not going to
defend the American homeland from any nuclear, biological, or chemical
missile attack. If it comes from a rogue nation like Iran, where 8 days
ago today, 200 of their congressmen, whatever they call them, in their
national assembly came to their feet and chanted and screamed, ``Death
to America''; and every analyst will tell you that 5 years in the short
term and 10 years at the maximum, they will have a nuclear weapon, as
CBS and PBS in documentaries on Desert Storm reported that Iraq was
within a year of nuclear weapons.
We simply must hold Mr. Clinton to account for making us take up
national missile defense and for making him take out our provisions not
to put U.S. troops under foreign or U.N. command.
Vote for this rule and support the authorization bill.
For immediate release, January 23, 1996.

Dornan ``Reluctantly'' Supports New Defense Conference Report

``I am very disappointed that we have been unable to retain
two very important provisions in the fiscal year 1996 Defense
Authorization Conference Report due to objections from the
Clinton administration. Provisions dealing with U.N. foreign
command of U.S. troops and deploying a national ballistic
missile defense have been removed from the new conference
report despite the clearly demonstrated importance of these
provisions. If it were not for the other important provisions
of the report, specifically financial benefits for soldiers
deploying to Bosnia, I would not hesitate voting against this
new bill. However, unlike the President, I am unwilling to
put politics ahead of the welfare of our troops and their
families and will support this conference report when it
comes to the House floor for a vote,'' commented Congressman
Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove), Chairman of the House
National Security Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Dornan, one of the original authors of the U.N./foreign
command provision after introducing H.R. 3334 in response to
the loss of 19 U.S. soldiers in Somalia in 1993, still
believes that there is great danger of another command
disaster under this administration. ``We must preserve an
American chain of command and chain of responsibility for
American troops and their families. If we never act on this
issue, we may again face another Mogadishu in Bosnia, Haiti,
or elsewhere.''
Dornan was also very disappointed at the lack of a clear
commitment to deploying multiple missile defense sites by
2003 to protect the continental United States from attack by
ballistic missiles. ``Fortunately, despite lack of language,
we still did increase funding for vital missile defense
programs such as Navy upper tier which will provide our
forward deployed forces and allies a near term/low cost
defense against attack. Without this funding, debate over
deployment dates and the ABM Treaty might become
meaningless.''
``These changes represent the wide gap between this
administration and the American public on national security
issues. I sincerely hope the American people remember these
critical differences on November 5th 1996!''

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].

{time} 1315

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in this body not a day goes by that we do
not deify the military. Yet in this bill is a provision that would
leave a woman

[[Page H786]]
stranded, while serving her country, without medical care, if the
medical care she happens to need is a legal abortion. A compromise had
been reached whereby she would have to pay 100 percent of the cost.
Instead, in this bill, she would be left alone to go off base, perhaps
in a foreign country and not speaking the language, to find that
medical care.
It is always wrong, Mr. Speaker, and it is always against the
American tradition, to interfere with a fundamental right to privacy.
It is particularly wrong to toss a member of the military to the winds
in need of medical care, particularly when she may be in a foreign
country.
This is a fundamental right; it is not going to be withdrawn. So the
strategy to humiliate people and make it difficult for them to be able
to exercise the right is the prevailing strategy of this session.
The exercise of this right is understandably painful to many who
oppose the right. It is painful to me to see someone exercise their
first amendment free speech rights when they are speaking words that I
find painful. But in this country, we do not try to extinguish
constitutional rights by making them difficult or impossible to
exercise. We particularly must not operate that way when dealing with
women who serve their country in the U.S. military.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, may I respond respectfully to my friend, the
prior speaker.
As the author of the amendment cutting off abortions in military
hospitals, an offer to pay for part of it does not take care of all of
the hospital costs and all of the attendant costs to someone using a
facility to stop human life.
I would just like to make part of the debate the following statement:
Not a single doctor, female or male, or nurse in the U.S. military
wrote to me not to cut this off. Quite to the contrary, all of the
doctors in Europe, every one of them and every anesthesiologist and all
of the doctors in the Pacific, said: Chairman Dornan, cut off this
killing. We do not want to do it.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee
on National Security who has worked hard all year on this bill, today
is a very difficult day for me. It is with great sadness that I rise
with great concern for this rule and this conference report.
The conference report we will vote on today is very similar to the
one vetoed by President Clinton in late December with some notable
exceptions. Several controversial sections have been removed. Although
I disagree, I might have supported this report without the missile
defense language and funding for the President's peacekeeping
misadventures, and we might have argued those another day.
However, the conference agreed to drop a section of the bill that
restricted the President's ability to place American troops under U.N.
command. How ironic that today we will vote on this bill when just this
morning a military court in Germany court-martialed Army Specialist
Michael New, an American hero who refused to wear a uniform that
signified allegiance to a foreign government, and dishonorably
discharged him. Had this section been included in last year's bill,
Michael New would be a decorated soldier today who would be proudly
serving his country.
We have overwhelmingly voted this in the past. I hope this rule is
defeated and we have a bill that America can be proud of and we can
vote for.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend,
the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Diaz-Balart], a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the revised
conference report on the Department of Defense Authorization Act. While
I preferred the conference report that a majority of Members supported
last month, I support adoption of this measure and urge the President
to sign it into law.
This legislation deserves our strong endorsement. The bill before us
will result in substantial Federal acquisition reform, which will
eliminate paperwork and procedural hurdles and will save the Defense
Department and taxpayer's billions of dollars. The bill also authorizes
a full pay raise for active duty military personnel and provides equity
in cost of living payments for our military retirees.
Chairman Spence and the leadership of the National Security Committee
have also addressed shortfalls in military construction and basic
equipment such as trucks, jeeps and ammunition. We also provide
additional F-15 and F-16 fighters, which will meet a critical Air Force
need. In addition, the production base for the B-2 Stealth Bomber is
maintained, which will enable additional aircraft to be manufactured
and will allow older bombers, which are prohibitively expensive to
operate and support, to be retired.
This is sound legislation and I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the rule
and the conference report.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] of the Committee on National
Security.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise with some reservation to support this bill,
reservations which have been adequately expressed by previous speakers.
Mr. Speaker, it shouldn't have had to come to this. We shouldn't have
to be revisiting the same issue over and over again. And yet, here we
are 6 weeks after spending United States troops to Bosnia voting again
on whether we should properly support American service men and women--
men and women who are repeatedly sent to the far corners of the world
to settle other people's conflicts.
In my home district, I have the honor of representing the fine men
and women who serve at Fort Dix and McGuire Air Force Base and
Lakehurst Naval War Center. In the tradition of those who served before
them, these dedicated individuals responded within hours to the
President's decision to deploy troops to Bosnia. Guard and Reserve
soldiers were readied at Fort Dix; supplies were flown out of and
through McGuire; air crews were sent to Europe and the Balkans to
ensure our forces were well equipped and supported. While many of these
service members have personal misgivings about the mission, they put
aside those doubts, saluted smartly, and got on with the business at
hand.
With little or no notice, these men and women left their homes and
families to an extremely uncertain situation. They mobilized just as
Christmas celebrations were beginning, leaving behind sons and
daughters, spouses, and mothers and fathers to carry on as best they
could. These men and women deserve our support. They deserve the full
pay raise which we promised; they deserve the increase in the basic
allowance benefit; and they deserve the COLA equity fix contained in
this bill. Let's do the right thing.
Let's pass the rule and pass this Defense authorization bill. We are
duty-bound to do no less.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very good bill, especially as my colleagues had
mentioned for the Reserve components. I ask my colleagues, do they know
that one-third of the military forces that we have today are in the
National Guard and Reserve? Do they know how much money we get out of
this bill today? We only get 10 percent of it. So it is a good buy for
the taxpayers.
However, under this legislation we were able to add $770 million for
new equipment for all of the Reserves and give them better equipment to
operate with. The technicians for the Guard

[[Page H787]]
and Reserves were raised by 1,250 people. These are the ones that run
our armories and our reserve centers.
We have a number of National Guardsmen and Reservists that are flying
on these great airplanes into Bosnia, and, if they do not get an
extension of 44 days, they cannot get paid. Under this bill, we have
given them an extension of 44 days that they will get their pay for
doing this special flying. There is a youth challenge program that is
extended for 18 months, a wonderful program.

The National Guard can still do community service if it is tied to
training. There was talk about not letting the National Guard use the
equipment in the different States. It would be a terrible mistake.
Under this bill, the National Guard can help out the community.
Instead of cutting each fighter squadron to 12 in the Air National
Guard and Reserve, the bill provides for 15 aircraft in each squadron.
The bill includes a program that I was proud to sponsor. It is a buy-
down of interest rates for service personnel at military bases where
there is a shortage of houses. This is the way it works. It would cover
personnel with the rank of E-4 and above, and buy-downs their mortgage
interest rate, 3 percent in the first year, 2 percent in the second
year, and 1 percent for the third year of the loan. This would help the
enlisted person get them housing where it is not available on the base.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, there are also kickers for the educational
benefits for Reservists, just like the active forces get for special
MO's. This can be implemented by the Secretary of Defense. This is a
good bill and I certainly support it.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary], a distinguished and very effective new member
of the Committee on National Security.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and of the
DOD authorization conference report. I would like to thank the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for this rule and especially
thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] for his diligent
work on trying to get this bill to the floor and get this bill into
law. It has a lot of important provisions and, I think, not the least
of which is the 2.4-percent pay raise for our military and the COLA
equity for our military retirees.
However, as has already been addressed this morning and this
afternoon, one important provision is missing, which is the provision
which prohibits placement of the U.S. forces under U.N. operational and
tactical control.
Many in this body, including myself, strongly oppose any time our
Armed Forces are being asked to be put under U.N. command or control.
The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief, and I
think it is wrong for him to cede his authority, his constitutional
authority to the United Nations. Apparently the President does not feel
this way, and he has insisted that this provision prohibiting our
troops coming under control of the United Nations, he has insisted that
it be taken out. I nevertheless support this rule and this bill, and I,
with some reservations, urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
(Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my great disappointment
that the conferees have chosen to retain the section of the bill which
would require the discharge of military personnel who test positive for
HIV. This provision was cited by the President in his veto message as
blatantly discriminatory, exalting ideology over common sense. The
Department of Defense itself has consistently opposed this provision.
It is unnecessary, unjust, and unwise, and I deeply regret that the
conferees have chosen to retain it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment and dismay that the
conferees have chosen to retain section 567 of this bill, which would
require the discharge or retirement of military personnel who test
positive for HIV.
As the President acknowledged in his message vetoing the first
conference report, this is a blatantly discriminatory measure which
exalts ideology over common sense. It is justified by neither the need
to ensure military readiness nor any other legitimate legislative
concern.
The Department of Defense has consistently opposed this provision on
a number of grounds. First, the number of servicemembers who test
positive for HIV is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the active
force and does not pose a significant problem for our military.
Second, these servicemembers are experienced, highly trained, and
physically fit, and it will not enhance readiness to deprive the Armed
Forces of their services.
And third, if and when their medical conditions render them unable to
carry out their duties, current law already requires that these
servicemembers be separated or retired. Moreover, current law gives the
Secretary of Defense full authority to discharge even asymptomatic
individuals should he determine that their retention would adversely
affect the military mission.
The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that this measure is not about military
readiness. Had it been so, it would not have singled out service
members with one particular medical condition, but would have mandated
the discharge of all who are non-worldwide assignable due to a medical
condition, whether they suffer from asthma, diabetes, cancer, or heart
disease. That would have been no less gratuitous, but it would at least
have had the virtue of consistency.
Why, then, are only servicemembers with HIV to be discharged? The
answer is inescapable: The proponents of this measure believe that
people living with HIV/AIDS do not deserve the same consideration and
compassion afforded those with other medical conditions.
Nor is it too far fetched to suggest that, for some, this provision
is really a proxy by which they hope to bring about the discharge of
HIV-positive servicemembers who happen to be gay. The shifting
demographics of this disease make it less and less likely that they
will actually achieve this result, but there are undoubtedly some gay
servicemembers who will be discharged under this provision who up to
now have managed to weather the unending waves of persecution to which
they have been subjected.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I object to what is perhaps the most mean-
spirited aspect of this provision: It not only deprives these men and
women of their careers, but by requiring their discharge rather than
providing for their medical retirement, it denies them continued
medical care at Department of Defense facilities. The bill allows these
servicemembers all of 30 days of transitional care before consigning
them to Veterans' Administration facilities--most of which are ill-
equipped to serve their needs. What is more, those who are enrolled in
military medical research would no longer be eligible to participate as
volunteers.
This is an unconscionable way to treat people who have honorably
served their country. It also places in jeopardy one of the most
important clinical vaccine programs in the world. Given the human and
strategic significance of the advancing pandemic, this is unforgivably
shortsighted.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this provision is unnecessary, unwise, and
unjust. I urge the House to reject the conference report.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend,
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida very much
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to be in the position that the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] is in. This is a really
tough situation for him, and I am really delighted with the work that
he has done on this bill to finally at least get a conference report
that will have the authorization in place. I am going to vote for it.
But I have to say that it is with some great reluctance, particularly
with respect to the ABM section of the bill.
Let me read first of all what the President said in his message. This
is his veto message:

First the bill requires deployment by 2003 of a costly
missile defense system able to defend all 50 States from a
long-range missile threat that our intelligence community
does not foresee in the coming decade, which would require a
multiple-site architecture that cannot be accommodated within
the terms of the existing ABM Treaty.

Well, let us just think about how intelligent our intelligence
community is with respect to their speculation about this foreseeable
or nonforeseeable, as they say, threat to the United States, and I will
make it as current as this morning.
Dateline, January 23, Beijing, China, New York Times, says that
preparations for a missile attack on Taiwan by

[[Page H788]]
China and the target selection to carry it out have been completed and
await a final decision by the Politburo in Beijing. A senior Chinese
official is quoted as asserting, ``China could act militarily against
Taiwan without fear of intervention by the United States because
American leaders care more about Los Angeles than they do about
Taiwan.''
Obviously a veiled threat against the United States, a veiled threat
of a missile attack against Los Angeles, the idea being that we would
not defend our ally in Taiwan against a missile attack, because we
would be afraid that China would launch a missile attack against Los
Angeles or New York or Cleveland, or Washington, DC.

{time} 1330

Mr. President, the whole idea is that we have got to get rid of the
ABM Treaty. Mr. President, we have to wake up in this country. There is
a real threat. It is a genuine threat, and the first thing or the first
order of business, the first responsibility of any moral government, is
to protect its citizens. That means beginning with the repeal of the
ABM Treaty.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam
[Mr. Underwood].
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and passage of the
DOD authorization bill. I would like to commend especially the
gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman Spence, and the gentleman from
California, ranking member Dellums, for their hard work on this very
important piece of legislation.
While the authorization process has dragged on far longer than
expected, I certainly applaud their commitment to its completion and
the resolution of some very many contentious issues surrounding the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I especially want to congratulate the parties involved
for bringing to closure the issue of equity in the COLA for military
retirees and civil service retirees, and especially also for bringing a
full pay raise for our men and women in uniform. As many Members fully
understand, Guam is the home to very many people in uniform, but
perhaps not equally understood is that very many of our own people are
in the service.
I also want to draw attention to some concerns I have. I have serious
concerns about the reductions in the environmental cleanup funding
included in this legislation. But I am pleased with the compromise
reached on funding of technical assistance for restoration advisory
boards at military bases. RAB's are critical to building strong
relations between the military and local communities. The small amount
of technical assistance that RAB's receive enables them to acquire
reliable and independent information that maintains this strong
relation.
I especially want to point out, and appreciate the attention of the
chairman and ranking member, a particular issue of concern to Guam. At
a time when Guam is suffering from the largest BRAC reductions and
closures of any American community, the commitment to assist in this
process is important.
For the first time, Guam is included as a U.S. area for the repair of
vessels. It may sound incredible, but Guam up to this time had to
compete with foreign SRF's for the repair of U.S. vessels in voyage
repairs.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman and ranking member for
their work on this legislation, and I urge passage of the rule and
ultimately the legislation.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], a wise leader on the Committee on National
Security and my good friend.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
rule for the consideration of the authorization conference report and
ask for support for the bill. I would like to address my comments, in
closing, to the issue of missile defense and what we did as authorizers
on the conference committee to bring forth a bill that this
administration would hopefully sign into law, in spite of the
objections they raised earlier this year and last year in terms of the
missile defense provisions.
Some would say that perhaps we negotiated too far and that in fact we
no longer have as a priority the issue of national missile defense. I
am here to say, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth.
This is not the end of the fight, this is the beginning of what
promises to be a war in this country, in this session of the Congress,
on the fate of the future of protecting the people of America from
missile proliferation and the threat of a rogue attack.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard the administration say they tried in good
faith to negotiate with us. Mr. Speaker, I say, hogwash, disingenuous,
totally misleading and totally self-serving. I was in those
negotiations, Mr. Speaker, with three other Members of the Congress. In
fact, no other House Members were present. It was Senator Nunn, it was
Senator Thurmond, and it was Senator Lott. We invited the
administration over in the form of Bob Bell, and we in good faith
addressed the 12 specific issues that he raised.
But, Mr. Speaker, it was like negotiating with a bowl of jelly,
because in the end the administration had no intent on coming to grips
with this issue of whether or not to protect America from the threat of
a rogue attack. We in good faith in fact compromised in each of the 12
areas. We made a good faith effort to change language to give the
administration the changes they asked for. But, Mr. Speaker, in the end
the President did not want a bill and would not agree to the bill
because we finally held his feet to the fire and said we want to deploy
a system by a date certain. Where was this date certain picked from? It
was picked from the recommendations of the President's own
administration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of rhetoric during the debate on the
floor. We heard this was going to violate the ABM Treaty. Guess what,
Mr. Speaker? A week ago Monday, the administration's point person on
missile defense said that we can protect the entire 50 States from a
single site by either using the Air Force or the Army program, which
would in no way violate the ABM Treaty. All of a sudden the
administration has no more argument that our efforts would have in fact
violated ABM, because in fact the administration's own point person
said that is not the case. Then the administration shifted gears and
said it might jeopardize START II.
Mr. Speaker, I just spent 7 days in Russia where I met with the
leaders of the Yeltsin administration on proliferation and on arms
control issues. They were not pressing me on the issue of an allowable
program under the ABM treaty. They are pressing me on expansion of
NATO.
Why has this President not chosen to speak to the issue of Russia's
concern with expanding NATO? If they want to know the real cutting edge
issue that will cause START II to be delayed in Russia, it is not what
we want to do, it is the administration's rhetoric about NATO and what
it wants to do. We did not hear that in the debate on the House floor.
Then we heard, Mr. Speaker, the administration finally resort to a
last ditch argument, because they could not make the argument on the
ABM Treaty alone, because this bill originally did not attack the ABM
Treaty. It did it in compliance with the treaty, even though many of us
feel the treaty has outlived its usefulness and ultimately has to be
changed. They then said there is no threat.
Get this, Mr. Speaker: The administration comes out with the most
politically biased intelligence brief I have ever seen in my 10 years
here, gives Senator Levin a political letter from the Deputy Director
of the CIA for use in debate on the Senate floor, saying there will be
no threat in 15 years, even though we requested this information for
months. Two weeks later we are able to get advanced telemetry equipment
the Russians are sending to Iraq to be used for a long range ICBM. The
treat is there, it is real, and the battle for a national missile
defense system is just beginning.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

[[Page H789]]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to state, so my colleagues will
understand very clearly, and I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Weldon] made the point, that this President does not want to
defend the United States against incoming ballistic missiles. That was
his major objection to this bill, along with the idea that he also
wants to have the right to delegate to foreign commanders the command
of U.S. troops.
We are now going to enter a period in which it is important for
Members of this House who feel that defense is important to enter a
full-court press this year to develop defenses against incoming
ballistic missiles, both for the people of the United States and for
our troops in theater. We are going to do this.
The President has given up his most solemn responsibility, and that
is to defend the people of the United States of America, and he is
denied that responsibility in this bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this rule and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would urge the adoption of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 340, I call up
the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1124) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal
year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). Pursuant to
the rule, the conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
January 22, 1996, at H351.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spence] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the President's veto of H.R. 1530 over the Christmas
holiday was unfortunate and unjustified. As I stated several weeks ago
when the House attempted to override the veto, if it has achieved
nothing else, the President's veto has helped to further highlight the
stark differences between the Congress and the President on critical
issues of national security.
There were two primary issues on which the original bill was vetoed.
First, was the provision in the original bill that called for the
deployment of a national missile defense system--that is, a defense of
the American people--by early next century. And second, was the
provision requiring the President to certify in advance that any future
deployment of U.S. military troops under the operational control of the
United Nations is in the U.S. national security interest.
Expressing what I know to be the sentiment of many of my colleagues,
these are issues of basic, fundamental principle. Accordingly, a
majority of the conferees believed that no deal with President Clinton
on these issues in this bill was far preferable to a bad deal.
Therefore, the conferees removed the national missile defense and
U.N. command and control language that the President objected to so
strongly rather than weaken the provisions. Nobody should think,
however, that this is the last that either this Congress or this
President has seen of these issues.
On both issues, however, the conference report still retains: Full
funding for ballistic missile defense programs, including an increase
of $450 million over the President's request for national missile
defense programs; strong direction on critically important theater
missile defense programs; and a provision of permanent law prohibiting
the Department of Defense from paying the U.S. share of the costs of
U.N. peacekeeping operations.
This conference report remains critically important for the numerous
pay, allowances, benefits and reforms that it contains. This is why so
much effort has been expended in such a short period of time to turn
this conference report around. I support this conference report which,
through two conferences now, has remained true to the four basic
defense priorities this House established and articulated beginning
early last year: improving military quality of life; sustaining core
military readiness; reinvigorating lagging modernization programs; and
beginning the long overdue process of Pentagon reform.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the troops and their
families with a ``yes'' vote on the conference report. It is time to
put our money where our mouths are.

{time} 1345

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California [Mr. McKeon] for the purposes of conducting a colloquy.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. Could the chairman please describe the outcome reached by the
conferees on S. 1124 with regards to the B-2 bomber program?
Mr. SPENCE. If the gentleman would yield, the conference outcome on
the B-2 was identical to the outcome on H.R. 1530 which the President
vetoed. It successfully establishes the conditions necessary to permit
the production of additional B-2 bombers beyond the currently
authorized 20 aircraft.
There is a key issue, however, that requires clarification for the
legislative record. First, as both the bill and report language clearly
indicate, the fence on the obligation of B-2 funds until March 31,
1996, applies only to the $493 million in additional fiscal year 1996
procurement funds. In no way does this fence impact obligation of prior
year B-2 funding.
Therefore, the balance of the $125 million authorized and
appropriated in fiscal year 1995 to sustain the B-2 industrial base is
available immediately for such purposes. The use of the phrase ``merge
with the $493 million'' in no way captures any prior year funding and
refers only to the use of those funds for the same purpose as the $493
million.
Mr. McKEON. I thank the chairman. Is it therefore the chairman's
perspective that the purpose for which the additional $493 million is
being authorized is the facilitization and acquisition of long-lead
items necessary to procure additional B-2 aircraft if such a decision
is made in the future?
Mr. SPENCE. If the gentleman would yield. Consistent with the
purposes specified in House Report 104-131 and House Report 104-208,
the increased authorization of $493 million for the program is for the
purpose of reestablishing critical elements of the B-2 production line
and procuring long-lead items consistent with the acquisition of
additional B-2 aircraft.
Mr. McKEON. I thank the Chairman for his clarification.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I join with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spence], the chairman of the committee, in bringing to the floor the
conference report on Senate bill S. 1124, the Defense authorization
bill for fiscal year 1996.
As Members know, and as the gentleman has already indicated, this is
the second conference report that has been brought to the floor on
fiscal year 1996. I am pleased that after the President's veto and the
Congress' sustaining of that veto of the first conference report, that
the conferees agreed to drop many of the provisions that the President
and many of us in this Chamber found objectionable.
With respect to the National Missile Defense program, and what this
gentleman perceives to be a tax on the ABM Treaty, I am pleased that
the concerted attack on the important antiballistic missile treaty was
finally removed from the report. The revised star wars concept that the
conferees eliminated from the bill would have been a return, in this
gentleman's humble opinion, to a program, Mr. Speaker, in search of a
threat.

[[Page H790]]

The intelligence community has reiterated on numerous occasions its
assessment that there is no threat to justify the rapid deployment of a
missile defense system at this time, one that is at this point
unnecessary and extraordinarily expensive. This is particularly
important in view of the fact that such a plan has, indeed, the
potential for the abrogation of the ABM Treaty.
With respect to command and control, the conferees also dropped the
provision that would have restricted the President in his role as
Commander in Chief. With respect to contingency operations, the
conferees also dropped the provision that required the President to
fund contingency operations in a specific way.
Fourth, with respect to the pay raise, I am pleased that the
provision to provide the full 2.4-percent pay increase to our troops
was included in this report. But I continue to believe, Mr. Speaker,
and would reiterate at this time, that it should not have been held
hostage to such a controversial bill in the first place.
While this bill represents an improvement over the original bill, it
still commits the Nation to a national security posture and spending
plan that is misguided at best.

Some of the provisions of this conference report continue to concern
me, and my concerns are as follows: One, the HIV provision which states
that anyone testing positive for HIV must be discharged, regardless of
circumstance. This has enormous implications, Mr. Speaker; not only
enormous implications for people inside the military. I would believe
that one day we will be back here revisiting this provision, because it
would just wreak havoc on a number of people in the military who have
tested positive.
But above and beyond those concerns that are specific and exclusive
to the U.S. military, at a time when AIDS is an incredible disease in
this country, we should not be sending the message from the Federal
Government that citizens should not be tested. The one way, Mr.
Speaker, that we gain knowledge about this incredible disease that is
killing and destroying human beings in America, try to understand it,
to gain some control, is by testing.
Mr. Speaker, when the Government sends the message that to be tested
is to be harmed, that, in this gentleman's opinion, is a foreboding,
incredible statement that this Nation should not be sending, because
the potential for your children, Mr. Speaker, our children, and our
children's children are at stake.
We need to be about understanding, learning, treating, and
controlling this disease. To communicate that message is awesome, in
this gentleman's opinion.
Second, provisions restricting open communication in awarding
shipbuilding contracts. Think about that, Mr. Speaker. At a time when
we are considering billions of dollars, provisions are included in this
bill that would retard competition. Is that good government?
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we would be back in these Chambers
one day, Mr. Speaker, and we would rue the day that there are
provisions in this bill that would retard competition for the use of
Federal dollars.
Third, almost $500 million is included for B-2 bombers that is not
required by the administration. If my colleagues heard the colloquy
between the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]
and the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], the
essence of that colloquy was that this $493 million is designed for the
purpose of purchasing long-lead items that ultimately result in the
purchase of additional B-2's.
I would submit in these Chambers, Mr. Speaker, that this is a weapons
system we do not need, a weapons system we cannot afford, and finally,
a weapons system for which there are alternatives.
Fourth, it resurrects, Mr. Speaker, the antisatellite program. What
can be more bizarre than $30 million to resurrect the antisatellite
program potentially placing us in a position of further militarizing
space, with the potential of all of the destabilization that goes with
gaining the capacity to destroy satellites, the eyes and ears of
nations in moments of controversy and difficulty?
Next, it constrains in certain ways the cooperative threat reduction
program euphemistically, referred to as the Nunn-Lugar program.
Next, it reduces funding for environmental cleanup programs at a time
when we are closing military installations all over the Nation and
people in local communities wanting to convert those lands to higher
and better use in their community, when we ought to be cleaning them up
as rapidly and as expeditiously as we can. In this bill we find where
the Department of Defense, in the conduct of its activities, has
polluted many of these facilities, we ought to be about trying to do
that as rapidly as possible, and we retard it by reducing the funds in
this program.

We terminate the technology investment program. What we do in this
bill is simply fund those programs that are in the pipeline. We then
end it at a time when, in the context of a post-cold-war world, we
ought to be answering the question: How do we convert from a heavy
reliance on military purchases and militarism, and converting ourselves
to an economy rooted in the principles of peace and the reality of a
post-cold-war world?
This bill, also, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms.
Norton], my distinguished colleague, in the context of her discussion
on the floor regarding the rule pointed out that this bill retains a
provision that would eliminate the right of women, with certain
exceptions, in the military to receive--at their own expense--abortion
services at military facilities overseas.
Mr. Speaker, I would add parenthetically that this provision was
incorporated in this significant piece of legislation without one
single hearing. The same can be said with respect to my comments
regarding HIV.
Finally, this bill still, still adds $7 billion, not million, $7
billion over and above the President's request for the authorization
for the Department of Defense in the context of a post-cold-war world
and during a period of time when we even shut this Government down
around the issue of balanced budgets.
Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate one more time that we spend virtually
as much as all of the other nations combined in our military budget.
And when we add the U.S. military expenditures with the expenditures of
its allies, it constitutes slightly in excess of 80 percent of the
world's military budget. Which means that if everyone else in the world
is perceived as an enemy, which is bizarre, extreme, and absurd, but
let us for the moment for the sake of discussion in this moment assume
that that is real, we still, along with our friends, are outspending
the rest of the world 4 to 1.
In this bill, when we talk about balancing the budget and cutting
health care and cutting education, and other programs, $7 billion, $7
billion to buy this weapons system and that weapons system and the
other weapons system because we need it? Because there is someone out
there poised to attack the United States? Because there still is a
Soviet Union? Because there is still some extreme enemy out there? No,
because it helps someone's economy. Because at the end of the day, this
is about jobs in the local community.
My response is I understand work. I understand jobs. I understand the
need for people to have work that is dignified, that allows them to
take care of themselves, their family, and their loved ones, to feed
their people, to clothe their people, to house them, to educate them.
But is the way to create jobs to use the military budget to purchase
expensive and unnecessary and potentially dangerous weapons systems to
produce jobs? No, it is about facing the reality of a peacetime
economy, of a post-cold-war world, developing an approach to the
American economy that addresses those realities where we stimulate the
economy to expand its employment, to move toward full employment, not
by building B-2's and building ships we do not need and building
rockets we do not need and building all those expensive and unnecessary
weapons systems. Every study that I have seen shows that that is an
awesome cost to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, we need jobs. On that point I am totally sympathetic.
Where I am not sympathetic is that we should use the military budget as
a jobs bill. The military budget should address our national security
needs.

[[Page H791]]

{time} 1400

So in conclusion, several points have been addressed in this bill
that the President saw as important issues dealing with the veto. They
have been dropped. The pay raise has been included. But there are still
a number of issues out there that would allow Members to continue to
rise in opposition to this report. And though we have now come back
with a bill that is better than the one the President vetoed, it is
still a bill that this gentleman cannot support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military
Research and Development.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, briefly I would ask our
colleagues on the other side that perhaps they should start the
conversation of increased spending with the man in the White House. We
talked about the $7 billion item. It was President Clinton who signed
the appropriation bill, which my understanding is, it contains $7
billion more.
To my amazement, in California, President Clinton gave a speech where
he talked about seeing the need for more B-2's. This is President
Clinton, the champion of cutting defense. I can guarantee Members he
will be at every shipyard where there are funded programs for new ships
being constructed this year. Unfortunately, we have a disingenuous
White House.
Let me talk about missile defense for a moment, because what we have
heard has been nothing but rhetoric and hogwash. Mr. Speaker, it is a
shame that General O'Neill did not confirm my statement on the floor
until a week after we voted on the defense bill. When my colleagues on
the left said we could not build a low-cost missile defense system from
a single site without violating the ABM, General O'Neill says on the
record we can. The Air Force can do it for about $2.5 billion over 4
years. The Army can do it for $5 billion over 4 years, and both of them
can do it in compliance with the ABM treaty. This is all in the public
record, I might add.
Also, Mr. Speaker, we heard our colleagues talk about no threat. I
was in Russia last week. I want to tell Members, when I was at the
Kremlin meeting with Yeltsin's advisors on proliferation, I asked them
a simple question, Can you explain to me how the advanced telemetry
equipment for a long-range ICBM was obtained going from Russia to Iraq?
Do my colleagues know what they said? We know nothing of this
incident. Mr. Speaker, we have the devices in our hands with the
Russian markings on them. Do Members know why the administration does
not want to confront this issue? Because it is a direct violation of
the MTCR. This administration would rather bury its head in the sand
than to face the Russians on a direct violation of the missile
technology control regime. This administration has sanitized
intelligence more than any other administration in the history of this
country.
The most outrageous thing about what this President is doing is
undermining the ability of this country to protect our people. That is
outrageous.
When I asked Ambassador Pickering for an answer, he said, We did not
ask the question yet. That is outrageous, and we will get to the bottom
of that story in the appropriate hearing scenarios.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, when I spoke in favor of sustaining the
President's veto of this bill, I said that 1 week of earnest
negotiation could produce an acceptable bill. I want to give credit to
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They were flexible on the
three issues most opposed by the administration. We now have a bill I
think which on balance is worthy of support. I congratulate my friend
and my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], for
navigating this difficult bill through a difficult conference.
I am happy with the pay raise, with the increased housing allowances.
I think all Members of this House should be, and I am hopeful that
these payments will not be any longer delayed. I am pleased, too, to
see that there are provisions here that will ensure that there is a
timely COLA for military retirees. They earned it; they are entitled to
it. So I will vote for this conference report and I will encourage my
colleagues to do the same.
But I do have concerns that I want to express. I am concerned that
this bill is not the long-term blueprint for the defense budget which
we need. I want to sound a friendly caveat to my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle. If we do not discipline the add-ons in the next
defense bill more diligently, we have a train wreck coming just down
the track.
This bill makes costly commitments like more B-2's, and I voted for
the money, but it makes costly commitments like that without tackling
any of the tradeoffs necessary to carry those commitments through in
the years ahead.
This bill starts up an antisatellite weapon, expensive, a space-based
laser, expensive, dubious technology, four prototype submarines,
without resolving just where all this money is going to be found to
carry these programs to fruition.
This bill speeds up existing programs like the Navy's Upper Tier, the
Navy's Lower Tier theater missile defense systems, the Army's Comanche
helicopter, the Air Force space and missile tracking system, so-called
Brilliant Eyes. It is doubtful we can maintain the speed in the years
ahead.
Unlike the appropriation bill, this bill mandates milestones, program
milestones, dates when things have to be done, deadlines for a host of
different programs. This is congressional micromanagement. It is a
practice that is often questioned, often decried by those very Members
who are practicing it here right in this very bill.

I, Mr. Speaker, see no way to sustain funding for all these
initiatives in the outyears. Between now and the year 2002, it is true
that the Republican budget for national security will add some
additional money over and above the Clinton defense budget, but it is
only $18.4 billion plus 1 percent of the total amount to be spent on
national security in the next 7 years. If we follow through with all
the systems that this bill either starts up or spends up, we will need
a lot more money than $18.4 billion.
If we do not come up with that additional money, we will have to slow
down or stop in future years that which we are starting up or speeding
up this year. That is not an efficient way to spend the scarce dollars
that we have for national defense.
It is also not good precedent to authorize $821 million for national
missile defense with nary a word about how Congress wants this program
structured and how this money should be spent.
I know that striking all the national missile defense language was
the best we could do, if we wanted an authorization bill, and I hope
this year when we do the bill we can settle on common ground and not
repeat this precedent of authorizing $821 million without any direct
examination or guidance.
I know that those who wanted the national missile defense provisions,
the language in this bill, think that the ABM Treaty is outdated and a
barrier to ballistic missile defense development. They have got a
point. The ABM Treaty is 23-years old, but the ABM Treaty does not bar
any particular development that we will do this year or in the
immediate future. And if we imply, even imply in an act of Congress
that we would possibly violate or even want to abrogate or renegotiate
the ABM Treaty, then we may put ratification of START II by the Russia
Duma in even greater risk that it faces now. START II will reduce
Russia's nuclear arsenal by some 5,000 warheads. The missiles that
carry these will be dismantled. The silos will be filled with concrete.
The warheads will be stored in a facility built according to U.S.
specifications in Tomsk, Siberia. And as to these 5,000 warheads, if
this comes to pass START II will give us 100 percent defense
effectiveness.
So for the sake of ballistic missile defense, we should concentrate
now on

[[Page H792]]
ratification of START II and later, when it is necessary and the time
is propitious, then we can concentrate on amendments to the ABM Treaty.
Mr. Speaker, every year since 1959, we have had an authorization
bill. A lot of Members do not understand that we really did not have an
authorization process prior to that date, and it has built up since
then. It is more necessary than ever, now that we are in a period of
changing national defense years. This is an important bill. We should
not break precedent and fail to pass it this year.
Since we settled the three most contentious issues, the pay raise for
the troops is here, the increase in the housing allowance, all rides on
this bill, I will vote for it and I encourage my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge Members to vote ``yes'' on S. 1124, the
revised fiscal year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act, and point
out that this is just another example of how Members on our side have
reached out and tried to cooperate with this administration.
The White House and a minority of Members in the House and Senate
have objected to the original conference bill because for the first
time Republicans committed this country to the actual deployment of
effective missile defense systems. I have to say that an article from
the New York Times today, page A3, which has been referred to earlier,
discusses a veiled threat from China to bomb Los Angeles by way of
missiles. I am absolutely shocked that the administration and certain
Members in this House and the other body would try, would actually
leave this country defenseless against such a threat to the continental
United States.
I want to put the administration on notice that these concessions on
missile defense policy are only temporary, and they are made because we
do need this entire bill. Important provisions in it like the 2.4-
percent military pay raise; the 5.2-percent increase for housing
allowances for our military families; the military retiree COLA fix;
increases for family housing construction so that one-fourth of all
barracks do not remain substandard; increases in modernization to stop
the 71-percent decline in procurement since 1985; and various Pentagon
reforms.
This is a good bill. It was a good bill in its entirety, and it is a
good bill today. But it is missing this vital ingredient, to protect
the men, women and children of America from the potential devastation
of an incoming missile. That to me is mindboggling, that we would just
abdicate our responsibility to defend against such a threat is wholly
mindless.
I would like to make some additional points. While the President
talks about the serious threat posed by nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons proliferation, it is clear to me he is not serious
about doing anything to combat these threats.
The President's blind devotion to the ABM Treaty is leaving our
Nation increasingly vulnerable. His lip service to ballistic missile
defense is just that, a placebo that places our Nation at serious risk.
Although the conferees have dropped ballistic missile defense
language from this conference agreement--but it is not because of
agreement with the President. It was done because we cannot condone the
administration's efforts to water down our ballistic missile defense
program. We will not be party to this irresponsible act.
Instead, this year the Congress will initiate its own ``spring
offensive.'' The Congress will make certain that ballistic missile
defense is one of our Nation's top priorities. Despite the obstruction
of the President today, the Congress will pursue a vigorous ballistic
missile agenda this year. Chairman Spence and the National Security
Committee intend to hold extensive hearings on this critical issue to
thoroughly review the nature of this threat, and determine the
programmatic options available to defeat this threat. I am confident
that the Defense subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee will also
do its part in this critical review.
Let me repeat--we will not be party to the President's total
unwillingness to respond to this growing threat.
I strongly believe it is now incumbent upon the Congress to fashion
its own ballistic missile defense program and policy. At the same time,
the Congress must also begin devising a responsible strategy for
withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. This treaty's time has come and passed.
Overtaken by technological progress, this treaty now represents the
ultimate placebo. If America is to defend itself in the future,
ballistic missile defense must be our highest priority. We cannot
continue to adhere to an antiquated arms control treaty which directly
negates the ability of the United States to protect itself from
ballistic missile attack. This would be a mistake of tragic
proportions--a mistake which will directly affect the security of our
children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, this issue will be revisited.
We will not go away. I urge the passage and adoption of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I included for the Record the article to which I
referred.

[From the New York Times, Jan. 24, 1996]

As China Threatens Taiwan, It Makes Sure U.S. Listens

(By Patrick E. Tyler)

BEIJING, Jan. 23--The Chinese leadership has sent unusually
explicit warnings to the Clinton Administration that China
has completed plans for a limited attack on Taiwan that could
be mounted in the weeks after Taiwan's President, Lee
Tenghui, wins the first democratic balloting for the
presidency in March.
The purpose of this saber-rattling is apparently to prod
the United States to rein in Taiwan and President Lee, whose
push for greater international recognition for the island of
21 million people, has been condemned here as a drive for
independence.
While no one familiar with the threats thinks China is on
the verge of risking a catastrophic war against Taiwan, some
China experts fear that the Taiwan issue has become such a
test of national pride for Chinese leaders that the danger of
war should be taken seriously.
A senior American official said the Administration has ``no
independent confirmation or even credible evidence'' that the
Chinese are contemplating an attack, and spoke almost
dismissively of the prospect.
``They can fire missiles, but Taiwan has some teeth of its
own,'' the official said. ``And does China want to risk that
and the international effects?''
The most pointed of the Chinese warnings was conveyed
recently through a former Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Chas. W. Freeman Jr., who traveled to China this winter for
discussions with senior Chinese officials. On Jan. 4, after
returning to Washington, Mr. Freeman informed President
Clinton's national security adviser, Anthony Lake, that the
People's Liberation Army had prepared plans for a missile
attack against Taiwan consisting of one conventional missile
strike a day for 30 days.
The warning followed similar statements relayed to
Administration officials by John W. Lewis, a Stanford
University political scientist who meets frequently with
senior Chinese military figures here.
These warnings do not mean that an attack on Taiwan is
certain or imminent. Instead, a number of China specialists
say that China, through ``credible preparations'' for an
attack, hopes to intimidate the Taiwanese and to influence
American policy toward Taiwan. The goal, these experts say,
is to force Taiwan to abandon the campaign initiated by
President Lee, including his effort to have Taiwan seated at
the United Nations, and to end high-profile visits by
President Lee to the United States and to other countries.
If the threats fail to rein in Mr. Lee, however, a number
of experts now express the view that China could resort to
force, despite the enormous consequences for its economy
and for political stability in Asia.
Since last summer, when the White House allowed Mr. Lee to
visit the United States, the Chinese leadership has escalated
its attacks on the Taiwan leader, accusing him of seeking to
``split the motherland'' and undermine the ``one China''
policy that had been the bedrock of relations between Beijing
and its estranged province since 1949.
A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, asked to comment on
reports that the Chinese military has prepared plans for
military action against Taiwan, said he was awaiting a
response from his superiors. Last month, a senior ministry
official said privately that China's obvious preparations for
military action have been intended to head off an unwanted
conflict.
``We have been trying to do all we can to avoid a scenario
in which we are confronted in the end with no other option
but a military one,'' the official said. He said that if
China does not succeed in changing Taiwan's course, ``then I
am afraid there is going to be a war.''
Mr. Freeman described the most recent warning during a
meeting. Mr. Lake had

[[Page H793]]
called with nongovernmental China specialists.
Participants said that Mr. Freeman's presentation was
arresting as he described being told by a Chinese official of
the advanced state of military planning. Preparations for a
missile attack on Taiwan, he said, and the target selection
to carry it out, have been completed and await a final
decision by the Politburo in Beijing.
One of the most dramatic moments came when Mr. Freeman
quoted a Chinese official as asserting that China could act
militarily against Taiwan without fear of intervention by the
United States because American leaders ``care more about Los
Angeles than they do about Taiwan,'' a statement that Mr.
Freeman characterized as an indirect threat by China to use
nuclear weapons against the United States.
An account of the White House meeting was provided by some
of the participants. Mr. Freeman, reached by telephone,
confirmed the gist of his remarks, reiterating that he
believes that while ``Beijing clearly prefers negotiation to
combat,'' there is a new sense of urgency in Beijing to end
Taiwan's quest for ``independent international status.''
Mr. Freeman said that President's Lee's behavior ``in the
weeks following his re-election will determine'' whether
Beijing's Communist Party leaders feel they must act ``by
direct military means'' to change his behavior.
In recent months, Mr. Freeman said he has relayed a number
of warnings to United States Government officials. ``I have
quoted senior Chinese who told me'' that China ``would
sacrifice `millions of men' and `entire cities' to assure the
unity of China and who opined that the United States would
not make comparable sacrifices.''
He also asserted that ``some in Beijing may be prepared to
engage in nuclear blackmail against the U.S. to insure that
Americans do not obstruct'' efforts by the People's
Liberation Army ``to defend the principles of Chinese
sovereignty over Taiwan and Chinese national unity.''
Some specialists at the meeting wondered if Mr. Freeman's
presentation was too alarmist and suggested that
parliamentary elections on Taiwan in December had resulted in
losses for the ruling Nationalist Party and that President
Lee appeared to be moderating his behavior to avoid a crisis.
``I am not alarmist at this point,'' said one specialist,
who would not comment on the substance of the White House
meeting, ``I don't think the evidence is developing in that
direction.''
Other participants in the White House meeting, who said
they would not violate the confidentiality pledge of the
private session, separately expressed their concern that a
potential military crisis is building in the Taiwan Strait.
``I think there is evidence to suggest that the Chinese are
creating at least the option to apply military pressure to
Taiwan if they feel that Taiwan is effectively moving out of
China's orbit politically,'' said Kenneth Lieberthal, a China
scholar at the University of Michigan and an informal adviser
to the Administration.
Mr. Lieberthal, who also has traveled to China in recent
months, said Beijing has redeployed forces from other parts
of the country to the coastal areas facing Taiwan and set up
new command structures ``for various kinds of military action
against Taiwan.''
``They have done all this in a fashion they know Taiwan can
monitor,'' he said, ``so as to become credible on the use of
force.''
``I believe there has been no decision to use military
force,'' he continued, ``and they recognize that it would be
a policy failure for them to have to resort to force; but
they have set up the option, they have communicated that in
the most credible fashion and, I believe, the danger is that
they would exercise it in certain circumstances.''
Several experts cited their concern that actions by
Congress in the aftermath of President Lee's expected
election could be a critical factor contributing to a
military confrontation. If President Lee perceives that he
has a strong base of support in the United States Congress
and presses forward with his campaign to raise Taiwan's
status, the risk of a military crisis is greater, they said.
A chief concern that Congress would seek to invite the Taiwan
leader back to the United States as a gesture of American
support. A Chinese military leader warned in November that
such a step could have ``explosive'' results.
In recent months, American statements on whether United
States forces would come to the defense of Taiwan if it came
under attack have been deliberately vague so as to deter
Beijing through a posture of what the Pentagon calls
``strategic ambiguity.''
Some members of Congress assert that the Taiwan Relations
Act of 1979 includes an implicit pledge to defend Taiwan if
attacked, but Administration officials say that, in the end,
the decision would depend on the timing, pretext and nature
of Chinese aggression.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference
report. I urge Members to support it as I support it strongly.
For more than a year I have been concerned that there is a mismatch
between the Nation's military strategy and the level of defense
resources. Last February, I testified before the House Committee on the
Budget and proposed a budget with additional and necessary funding for
the military. My concerns were many. I spoke of a shortfall in funding
for modernization, maintenance and infrastructure, daily operations and
training.
For fiscal year 1996 alone, I proposed a minimum increase of at least
$6 billion over the administration's request as a necessary requirement
to sustain a quality force into the future. I am pleased that this
conference report authorizes an increase of nearly $7 billion.
However, this conference report is not perfect. But I do point out
that it does have the necessary pay increase for the young men and
young women in uniform, that it has the necessary housing allowance
increase. Those are so terribly important for those people who wish to
make a career of our military.
There are provisions I would have deleted and others I would have
added. But compromise has been necessary, and the report is a step in
the right direction. It authorizes an end to the freefall in defense
expenditures and includes many necessary policy initiatives. Most
important, the report includes a permanent endstrength floor for
personnel levels in each of the respective services. This provision
alone warrants support from this body. The endstrength floors are
necessary to counter and to offset low moral resulting from the strains
of increased training schedules and overseas deployments.
As our Nation sends additional troops into the Balkan region, I ask
my colleagues to assure the uniformed ranks of our commitment to them.
If you are for a first rate naval and marine force, then you should
support this report. If you are for a healthy and capable Army, then
you should support this measure. If you are for a robust and well-
equipped National Guard and Reserve, you should support this package.
And if you are for a strong Air Force with an unmatched B-2 bomber
force, then you must support this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). The Chair
advises Members that the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] has
20\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dellums] has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Hunter], chairman of our Subcommittee on Military
Procurement.

{time} 1415

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
committee for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that we were able to take this bill after it
had been vetoed by the President and run it back through a limited
conference and get it back on the floor and, hopefully, get it back to
the President's desk for signature, is a tribute to our chairman, the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]. I also want to thank the
ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
When we put this abbreviated conference together to get the bill back
through, the gentleman from California worked equally hard to see to it
that we had a Defense authorization bill.
It is important that we have this bill. This bill is about $8 billion
more than the President's initial suggestion. On the other hand, the
President's own vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Owens, has
said that we need to spend $20 billion more per year on procurement. In
this bill we not only have the pay raise and the increased housing
allowance for the troops, but we have modernization. We have
increased airlift, increased sealift, more ammunition, more precision
guided munitions, and such very basic things as trucks and other
transportation equipment, so we are giving the troops the equipment
that they need to do the job.

Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying we did strip out missile
defense from this bill. We said in our bill that we would defend the
United States against missile attack and we would have that system,
that defense system, ready by the year 2003. The President

[[Page H794]]
said, ``I object to defending the United States of America against
missile attack,'' and that was his primary reason for a veto.
Mr. Speaker, on this date we should launch a campaign to overturn the
decision by President Clinton to leave this country defenseless against
missile attack. We live in an age of missiles. It is something the
President has resisted.
We are going to start the campaign as of this day and, hopefully, at
the end of this year we will have a defense authorization bill that
builds a defense against ballistic missiles.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time to me. I further thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, because the two
of us have sat next to each other on this committee for almost 24 years
now. I thank him for his friendship and constant leadership on this
bill.
I must say, I like the gentleman from California, but I am rising to
say please vote ``no'' on this bill.
I really do not understand this. The favorite thing I have on my
schedule today says that between 10 and 4 today I can go to either room
2340 or 2117, in each room there is one copy of this conference report,
where I may go read it at that point. Mr. Speaker, I do not even know
what it is we are really dealing with. I do not know where this is, why
we could not see it ahead of time, what is going on. I must say, this
is not the process that I was proud of in this House. I am very sorry
to see that happen.
Let me go to some of the very substantive issues. Let me move off
this process. In this summer, this summer the Pentagon lost $14.5
billion. It could not find it from last year. So what do we do? For the
first time in my 23 years, we reward them by giving them even more
money than they asked for this time. Can Members think of another
agency of Government where we would do that if this summer they had not
been able to account for $14.5 billion?
So, there would be a committee saying, ``I will tell you what, the
President does not want more, the Joint Chiefs do not want more, but we
are going to give you more anyway. Have a nice day.'' We have not done
that in my 23 years, and I cannot believe we did it this year.
There are increases in here for the CIA. I have tried very hard many
times to get that number open so we could at least tell people what we
are spending for the Central Intelligence Agency. These are the guys
who missed Carlos Salinas in Mexico when we were doing NAFTA, they did
not know the Wall was falling down, they have been falling all over the
place trying to find a mission. Every year they get more money, too.
That is great. We have B-2's in here which no one knows what to do
with.
I could go on and on and on. I think this bill is pathetic, and I
hope people vote ``no.''
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], who is chairman of our Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong--in fact, strong support would be too
weak a term--I rise in fervent support of S. 1124, the Department of
Defense authorization conference report. I want to commend the
chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], and all
members of the committee who have labored long and hard to achieve what
I think is truly a bipartisan work product.
During the many weeks of debate over this legislation, one very
important issue which was always bipartisan from the very beginning has
been the provisions to significantly reform the procurement system of
the Department of Defense and the civilian agencies in order to make
the Federal Government a smart shopper, something it has not been
accused of being in my tenure here or for a long time before that.
The provisions that are in this bill are consistent with H.R. 1670,
the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995, which was a joint
initiative of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the
Committee on National Security. Those measures passed the House by a
vote of 423 to 0 in September of last year.
The private sector continues to increase its productivity and its
effectiveness in this whole area because they are not bound down by the
arcane, convoluted Rube Goldberg type of provisions that the Federal
Government has to operate with in its procurement system. It is a
centrally planned system as it exists, expensive to operate, and
heavily laden with paperwork requirements and bureaucracy. Piecemeal
reforms just have not done the job. Today's system forces taxpayers--
and this is the significant point, Mr. Speaker--forces taxpayers to pay
a 20-percent premium on Federal purchases; on all Federal purchases,
from fighter aircraft to office supplies, we are paying a premium of 20
percent, which this bill is going to go a long way toward correcting.
This agreement provides reforms needed to make DOD and the civilian
agencies smart shoppers, as I said. The conference agreement promotes
affordable and commonsense approaches to meet our budgetary goals by,
among other things, providing for the increased use of commercial
items, increasing the competitiveness of U.S. defense products in
international markets, eliminating numerous government-unique
procedures, and creating a whole new system for the purchase and
management of Federal information technology.
Mr. Speaker, this is a marvelous bill. It is a tremendous reform of
our procurement system. It is the one thing we can do today that can
save more money than almost anything else we do.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the
previous speaker, was the cosponsor on the individual original bill,
the acquisition bill, and did yeoman's work in getting it through. He
deserves a lot of credit for that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Bateman], chairman of our Subcommittee on Readiness.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me, and I commend him for his outstanding work on making sure we
brought this work product on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report and
urge its adoption.
This conference report is good for our military personnel and good
for their families.
This measure enhances force readiness. It fully funds the operations
and training accounts and provides additional resources to other
important readiness activities. It also protects these training and
readiness accounts by establishing short-term financing mechanisms to
pay for the initial costs of unfunded contingency operations.
This measure contains a number of provisions which improve the
quality of life for our service personnel and their families.
Additionally, this conference report contains reform measures to
generate efficiencies in order to maximize limited defense resources.
Our military personnel put it on the line daily to provide for this
Nation's security. They do so willingly and with pride. We must keep
faith with them and their families.
We owe it to our troops to adopt this conference report today. The
President owes it to our troops to sign this measure as soon as it
reaches his desk.
This legislation is needed. Vote ``yes'' on this conference report.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military
Construction.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1124, the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996.
Last evening, the President stood at the rostrum and gave a nice
speech. He talked about the challenges facing the country and he urged
us to set aside our differences and work together for the best interest
of the American people.
One of those challenges, he said, is ``to maintain America's
leadership in the fight for freedom and peace

[[Page H795]]
throughout the world.'' We all know that we can only meet this
challenge by providing the Nation with a strong defense--a defense that
can meet the threats posed by those who would challenge our interests
and those of our allies or would threaten the liberties of our people.
Mr. Speaker, speeches and rhetoric are not enough. I regret that the
President chose last month to veto the original defense authorization
bill. That veto was unjustified. The original bill, like the one before
us today, was a bipartisan product. Republicans and Democrats came
together to provide the American people with what they expect--that is,
a robust defense that could deal with any immediate threat and which
looks to the future to deal with the emerging threats of the 21st
century.
The President vetoed the bill principally because he objected to
working toward a viable national missile defense by 2003 and to
providing the American people with assurances that the placement of
American military personnel under the operational control of the U.N.
is in the national security interests of the United States. On these
issues, the President is out of step with a bipartisan majority of this
House and, more importantly, with the American people. I remain
committed to seeing these provisions enacted into law.
The President's veto put a lot at risk. As the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I can assure the
House that we need an authorization bill. Over 9,200 military families
will benefit from housing improvements this bill would authorize and 68
new barracks projects would begin this year. In addition to these
significant housing improvements, this bill would provide needed child
development centers and medical facilities for our personnel. Hundreds
of construction projects in this bill are designed to enhance the
readiness of our forces. We are confronting a significant deterioration
in military infrastructure. Without an authorization bill, none of
these projects will go forward and the housing privatization initiative
cannot proceed.
The military services, the men and women who serve in them, and the
families who support them need this bill. It is my hope that the
President will sign this defense authorization bill as soon as it
reaches his desk. We should have no further delay.
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of legislative history, I want to note the
colloquy that I had with the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Porter, on
December 15, 1995, concerning sections 2836 and 2837 of H.R. 1530, the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996. In our
colloquy concerning those provisions, I gave the gentleman from
Illinois some clarification concerning the application of those
provisions to the Glenview Naval Air Station, Glenview, IL. Although
the President vetoed that legislation, those sections were unaltered in
the subsequent conference with the Senate on the defense authorization
bill, S. 1124. Sections 2836 and 2837 of S. 1124 are identical to the
provisions in the earlier bill and my assurances to the gentleman from
Illinois remain unchanged.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dornan], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Personnel.
(Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, even though critically important language on
the U.N. or foreign command of U.S. troops and the deployment of this
critically needed national missile defense system and contingency
funding, all those are out, and Mr. Clinton is going to pay a heavy
price during the next 286 days for that, I am very proud to stand up
here and defend our chairman and this great authorization bill.
Among the important personnel provisions included in the bill that I
authored or fought for as the chairman of the Subcommittee on military
personnel are prohibition against all abortions in overseas or U.S.
military hospitals, mandatory discharge of all nondeployable, noncombat
trainable AIDS virus carrying drug users, and others, excellent new
guidelines for accountability of American POW-MIA's, finally, a 5.2
percent interest pay raise in housing allowances, a cost of living
adjustment, COLA, for military retirees, and a pay equity adjustment.
Among the other provisions I have championed as a member of the full
committee or the Committee on Research and Development are increased
funding for Navy upper tier ballistic missile defense, key; increased
funding for more Army Kiowa OH-58D helicopters and for the Comanche
RAH-66 Scout helicopter of the future; conditions on aid to Nunn-Lugar
type money to Russia, pending a screeching verifiable halt to Russian
work on the evil biological weapons; increased funding for near-term
precision guided weapons for the B-1 Lancers; increased funding for new
unmanned aerial vehicles, UAV's. I witnessed them in operation 4\1/2\
months ago in the Balkan theater, flying over Bosnia from Albania. Now
it is all out in the open press.
Mr. Speaker, I believe those provisions that were cut out by
Clinton's demands, he is playing high-risk. We saw his last State of
the Union last night because American citizens want this beloved
homeland of ours to be protected from rogue missiles, whether they are
packed with nuclear devices, biological, or evil chemical warfare.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
California, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, last night we heard two speeches about priorities and
values. The Senate majority leader said, and I quote, ``The President
claims to embrace the future while clinging to the policies of the
past.'' Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at this legislation. This bill
is clearly an improvement over the one that we worked on before, and I
commend the conferees for their hard work, but the Republicans claim
this bill, like the one before it, embraces the future of the U.S.
defense policy. But the U.S. defense will not sail smoothly toward the
future, because this bill is anchored by the policies of the past.
The Republicans speak of the need to balance budgets, cut fat, make
difficult choices, but the Republicans are not making these difficult
choices in defense. This bill does not make cuts, it gives the Pentagon
$7 billion more than they asked for. The Republicans speak of the need
to strengthen this country's defense.

{time} 1430

The Department of Defense will grow stronger when it is allowed to
become leaner, more efficient and equipped for the challenges in a new
world order.
This bill, however, builds up programs that the Department of Defense
was moving away from, like the B-2, the ballistic missile defense, and
the cuts in the Department of Defense environmental cleanup programs.
We are closing military bases all over the country, realizing that the
Federal Government is one of the biggest polluters, and we are not
providing the money to clean up those sites.
The Republicans speak of supporting our men and women in uniform, yet
this bill requires a discharge of service personnel with HIV, and
prohibits members of the military from obtaining abortions in our
military facilities overseas. Risking the health of our military, and
needlessly taking away their careers, will hardly build morale.
As Americans watch this bloated defense budget pass this Congress,
they will realize which party is really tethered to the past.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. McHugh], the chairman of our MWR panel.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Let me add my words of appreciation and congratulations to the
chairman of the full committee for his very effective work on this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the National Security Committee's
Special Oversight Panel on Morale, Welfare and Recreation, I rise in
strong support of this bill.
The conference report fully funds important military quality of life
programs including family support, child care, commissaries, gymnasiums
and other recreational programs and facilities. These programs are
critical to ensuring that our military personnel are taken care of,
especially considering the sacrifices demanded of them in places.
The conference report makes a big contribution to caring for military
personnel while on deployments and to the

[[Page H796]]
families who must experience the difficulties associated with this high
personnel tempo. Also, special efforts were made in this bill to ease
the burden on these programs that resulted from the reduction of forces
in Europe.
These quality of life improvements are a direct investment in
readiness because they aid in retaining quality people in our Armed
Forces. This bill represents a commitment by the American people in
return for the sacrifices we demand of our men and women, in uniform
each and every day.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this worthy legislation.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this authorization conference report was
supported by 48 to 3, 48 to 3. To be fair, it probably would have been
48 to 4, but the gentlewoman from Colorado did not think enough to show
up to vote, and she calls this bill pathetic. Maybe if it was that
pathetic she would show up and vote in the report.
The President, in his 1993 budget, cut military COLA's. In a
bipartisan way, this committee restored COLA equity for our military.
And guess what, Mr. Speaker? In the President's last budget, he cuts
COLA equities once again, and this is the last chance to protect those
in this particular bill.
Let us talk about HIV. I had two people in my squadron who had HIV.
They could not deploy, I could not use them, they had to be tied to the
hospital. I could only tell my executive officer and the flight
surgeon, which meant a risk for other people in that unit. With the
limited and cut-back funds, we need full up-rounds in our units.
This also doubled the deployment time on shore duty of our military
at a time when they are supposed to be spending it with their families.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Jones].
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, as a supporter of the original conference
report, I would like to express my strong support for this new and
improved version of the 1996 Department of Defense conference report.
This legislation, as my colleagues well know, is critical both to the
functions of the Department, as well as to the men and women in
uniform, who diligently serve this Nation. As has been stated time and
again, this conference report provides a 2.4-percent pay raise,
increases family housing, improves health care for military dependents,
and funds overdue COLA equity for military retirees.
While the original conference report garnered the support of both the
House and Senate, the President vetoed the measure. Chairman Spence has
brought back to this House a conference report that adequately deals
with the President's concerns, while carefully balancing the priorities
of this Congress.
I believe this effort to build a consensus between congressional
leadership and the administration is sound and once again merits the
support of the House.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I hope we will vote this
bill down. We are going to balance the budget. We are going to severely
limit Federal spending. If you spend military dollars at the rate that
this bill calls for, you inevitably will diminish substantially our
ability to clean up the environment, to provide medical care for people
who need it, to help provide public safety in our cities, to help deal
with education for middle-income and working class students. There
simply is not enough money to do both what this bill would do and that.
Fortunately, the gentleman from California who heads the minority on
this committee has articulately and eloquently over the years, and
again today, pointed that out; and that leaves me free to focus on one
of the most obnoxious aspects of this bill. I admire the fact that the
President singled it out when he originally vetoed it. I am very
disappointed that it survives.
That is the legislation that says, if you are a young man or woman
who volunteered to serve your country and you contract a terrible
illness, the illness of being HIV-positive, your country will reward
your volunteering and your good service by kicking you out. Any service
you have accumulated will count for nothing if you are not eligible for
a pension.
Fortunately, the Senate intervened a little bit to temper the
gratuitous cruelty of the House bill to say that you should at least
get some medical benefits. But cruel it remains.
What it says is, if you are someone who volunteered to serve your
country, volunteered to join the armed services, but you become
seriously ill with HIV, we will treat you as callously and as coldly as
it is possible for a society to treat you. Out you will go. Out you
will go. People who said, well, that about their ability to do things.
The military now has the power to say, you have reached the point of
disability, you must leave. This means that well before that point
people who are HIV-positive will be subjected to this incredible,
callous cruelty, and it means that there will be no chance that the
military now has to reassign people, to make use of their talents while
they are still in a healthy phase. The military has a knack for this.
It is an example of bigotry that dishonors this House.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Jacksonville, FL [Mrs. Fowler], a new and very valuable member of our
committee.
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the revised DOD
authorization conference report.
It is unfortunate, but telling, that the original conference report
was vetoed over requirements that the President move toward deployment
of national missile defenses by 2003, provide a national security
certification before U.S. forces are placed under U.N. command, and
seek supplemental funding prior to beginning contingency operations. As
a result, this bill has been modified. I believe the original
provisions served the interests on the American people well--especially
with regard to antimissile defenses, which are nonexistent today.
Nevertheless, passage of this bill remains vital. Critical military
readiness, force modernization, and quality of life issues cannot be
addressed without it.
In particular, it provides military members with a full pay raise and
increased housing allowances, it increases funding for training and
maintenance, it pursues needed research and procurement to ensure our
military's modernization, and it reforms pentagon acquisition policies.
I also note that it spells out some very important changes in DOD
maintenance and repair policies.
This bill is an excellent one. Chairman Spence and the members of the
conference committee have done a good job, and this bill merits our
strong support.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ortiz].
(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.
As the ranking minority member of the House Subcommittee on Military
Installations and Facilities, I am proud of key elements of this bill
which affect the military construction program and focus on improving
the quality of life for military personnel and their families.
This bill would provide both short- and long-term solutions to a
critical problem that impacts the retention and readiness of our Armed
Forces.
By focusing on improvements to troop and military families, and
setting strict priorities within the military construction program, we
ensure that the housing backlog is addressed and quality of life is
improved.
Furthermore, the bill includes a series of new authorities which
would encourage the private sector to develop housing for unaccompanied
personnel and military families at installations where there is a
certified shortage of quality housing.
This initiative has strong bipartisan support, including the support
of the Secretary of Defense.

[[Page H797]]

This bill is not perfect, but it is a good bill that places priority
on improving readiness and the quality of life programs that impact our
personnel and their families.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the bill.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I would ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] to join me in
a colloquy.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] and I are
among several Members of Congress who have been seriously concerned
about the administration's proposal to retire almost one-third of our
Nation's B-52 force. I am pleased that the conference report prohibits
the Department of Defense from retiring or preparing to retire any B-
52H's in fiscal year 1996. The committee directs the Air Force to
retain in an attrition reserve status the 28 B-52H bombers that would
otherwise be retired.
I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Procurement again to further explain the committee's intent with regard
to the number and status of B-52's to be maintained under this bill.
Mr. HUNTER. The B-52 is still our Nation's most capable and only
dual-role bomber and provides substantial conventional firepower and a
strong nuclear deterrent. The committee believes that maintaining the
current inventory of 94 B-52's is a cost-effective investment in our
Nation's defense.
Accordingly, the committee report directs the Air Force to retain in
attrition reserve the 28 B-52's programmed for retirement in the
Department of Defense budget request. With the funds authorized under
the bill, the committee expects the Air Force to keep the 28 attrition
reserve aircraft at their current operational B-52 bases, maintained
ready to fly and cycled through the active squadrons.
Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the chairman for providing his leadership and for
this important clarification.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr.
Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to
compliment both the chairman and the gentleman from Kansas for their
efforts to support a long-range bomber force that meets our mission
requirements, and for this very important opportunity to clarify
congressional intent relative to B-52's.
It is the directive of this authorization bill that the full fleet of
94 B-52's will be retagged. This is vital because it is our most
versatile, cost-effective and only battle-tested bomber.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Hoke].
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spence] for his leadership on this bill. I wanted just to confirm what
we have discussed earlier with respect to the ballistic missile defense
that is so important to the national security of our country, and that
even though we have obviously lost this opportunity to build that up in
this bill, that it is the intention of the Committee on National
Security to move forward as one of its top priorities to have hearings
on a national missile defense system and do that in the second term of
the 104th Congress.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would like to
assure the gentleman that we are going to revisit this question. It is
a very important question. The people of this country do not realize
that we are not defenders right now against intercontinental ballistic
missiles, and when they find out, as they have found out, many of them,
that we are not defended properly, they become very much concerned and
want to know why.
We are going to have hearings. At some time during this next year, we
are going to point this problem up even further, and I assure the
gentleman that we will go into great detail in promoting this new
initiative next year.

{time} 1445

Mr. HOKE. I really appreciate that. As the gentleman knows, I am the
author of H.R. 2483, the Defend America Act. I appreciate the
gentleman's support on that, and especially in light of this veiled
threat from Chinese officials. I think it is terribly important that we
move this forward. I thank the gentleman very much for his leadership.
Mr. SPENCE. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Young] who is chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security of the
Committee on Appropriations, a very valuable Member of this House and a
very strong supporter of national defense.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as I rise in support of this
conference report, I want to say a special word about the gentleman
from South Carolina, Chairman Floyd Spence. Chairman Spence and the
gentleman from California, Mr. Dellums, and I came to the Congress
together in the 92d Congress. We were all assigned to the Committee on
Armed Services and we have all worked closely together since that time
in behalf of our Nation's security and those who provide the Nation's
security.
In the last year since the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]
and I assumed our respective chairmanships, we have worked together on
a daily basis, and I think in an unusual partnership between
authorizers and appropriators that does not always happen here. I want
to compliment the gentleman. I know the rigors and the trials that the
gentleman has gone through in order to get us where we are today with a
good conference report on a good defense authorization bill, and one
that I understand even the President is prepared to agree to.
The gentleman deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the
contribution that he has made to our national defense effort over all
these years and in bringing this particular bill to us today. I
compliment the gentleman and appreciate our friendship and professional
relationship.
One of the items in this bill is something that most of us have been
concerned about, and that is what we refer to as COLA equity for
retired military personnel. We thought we had this problem of equity
corrected several times during the year, but each time the arrangement
fell apart. But Chairman Spence stuck to his guns in this bill, and I
would like to announce this to the 323 of our colleagues who have
cosponsored H.R. 2664, to accomplish COLA equity for our retired
military. This bill does what 2664 intended to do, and I thank the
chairman and ranking member for including it and insisting that it be
included in this bill. Hopefully the President will understand the
importance of that and will sign this bill and let it become law.
Again, I appreciate the working relationship that our two committees
have had, our respective members and staffs have had, a good working
relationship to provide for the security of our Nation, the well-being
of those who serve us in the uniform of the United States, and to get
the best deal we can for the taxpayer who has to pay for it all.
Mr. Speaker, there were very many things I found disturbing about
President Clinton's first budget enacted in 1993. There were the new
taxes, the increase in the Social Security earnings limitation, real
cuts in Medicare spending, and the failure of the President to
seriously address the deficit. However, nothing in that budget seemed
more outrageous than to treat our Nation's retired military personnel
as second-class citizens when it came to their retirement pay.
As one of this Congress' strongest advocates for those who serve and
have served in our Nation's Armed Forces, I found it deplorable that
the President and the Congress would ask those who have sacrificed so
much for this country to bear an unfair burden in efforts to reduce the
deficit. In fact, I would argue at length with anyone who suggests we
should delay cost-of-living adjustments [COLA's] to military retirees
as a means to help balance the budget. But I will fight to the bitter
end against those who would do so while treating other Federal retirees
differently. Unfortunately, this was exactly what the President's
budget did as civilian retirees and military retirees were set on
different COLA schedules all in the name of deficit reduction.
Many of us in this Congress and throughout our Nation have been
engaged in the battle for equity between civilian and military retirees
since then. Fighting along side national and local veterans and
military organizations we began in opposition to the President's 1993
budget. Then, 2 years ago we fought and succeeded in eliminating the
disparity in 1995 by providing funds for an April COLA.

[[Page H798]]

Last year, while the President refused to include language in his
budget request repealing the COLA changes, the Congress took its own
action by restoring equality in the 1996 Defense authorization bill.
Although the President vetoed this bill, the legislation we consider
today will again ensure that military retirees receive their COLA's in
April of this year, and in January in 1997 and 1998, the same dates
that civilians will receive their COLA's.
Since this Congress began more than a year ago, the new leadership of
this House has made it a priority to end the inequity visited upon our
Nation's military retirees by that 1993 budget. When our efforts to
solve this problem in November became bogged down in the politics of a
balanced budget and the 1996 Defense Authorization bill had stalled, I
introduced a free-standing bill, H.R. 2664, to restore parity between
military and civilian COLA's. In 4 legislative days more than 250
Members of Congress cosponsored this bill. Today there are over 320
cosponsors.
Mr. Speaker, as press reports indicate that the Secretary of Defense
will recommend the President sign this new defense measure, supporting
the conference report will be a major step toward restoring fairness to
the way we treat both military and civilian retirees. I urge every one
of my colleagues in the House to support the legislation before us
today and help bring a successful conclusion to our efforts to end this
inequity once and for all. Let's treat our military retirees with the
fairness, dignity, and respect they so rightly deserve.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as I heard the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Young] talk eloquently about the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the contributions that the two of them have
made to this bill, I think it is important to also recognize the
contributions that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the
ranking member on Armed Services, has made to this whole process. The
gentleman from California not only served his country in the call to
the military, but has served for many, many years on this committee and
was chairman of this committee and has very strong disagreements with
the priorities that have been set. Yet, nevertheless, as chairman of
the Committee on National Security, there is no one who took a bigger
hit in his own district than the gentleman did in trying to downsize
the military of this country.
I think it is interesting, last evening perhaps the greatest applause
line that we heard was in the notion of ending the Lyndon Johnson big
Government programs. It was not applause that just came from this side
of the aisle; it came from the Republican side of the aisle. Yet the
first bill that we bring up when we talk about downsizing Government,
the first bill we bring up, adds $7 billion more to the deficit of this
country than the Joint Chiefs of Staff in all of their wisdom requested
of the Congress of the United States. They did not request the number
of B-2's, they did not request the number of F-22's. Everyone who
studies those issues knows those are not the aircraft we need in order
to deal with the threat that the United States of America faces today.
I am in favor of a strong national defense, the gentleman from
California is in favor of a strong national defense, but not a wasteful
national defense.
Mr. Speaker, there are homeless people on the streets of our country,
housing residents that came and stood on the steps of this Capitol just
yesterday, whose budget has been cut by $7.5 or $8 billion without a
hearing, the same level of overspending that is occurring in this bill.
Why is it that we have a country that wants to overspend on national
defense, go beyond what is recommended by the greatest experts in this
country, and yet go ahead and cut the most vulnerable people in this
country? We go out and not only cut the housing budget, but we cut the
homeless budget as well.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is time for us to have a country that
looks forward and recognizes that by investing in our people we can
have a strong national defense and a strong society as well.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I hope my friend, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], will listen, because the
Department of Defense budget is the only budget out of the entire U.S.
budget that has been cut in real terms by over 10 percent in the past 5
years. When I first got to Congress, it was $300 billion a year. This
year it is about $275 billion.
There are hundreds of thousands of young men and women who want to
serve their country who have been involuntarily discharged or not had
their contracts renewed because of downsizing. The point of the matter
is the Department of Defense is smaller, and they are doing a better
job with what they have.
I want to compliment the chairman and ranking member for doing the
best job that we could with the funds that we have. I want to encourage
my colleagues to vote for this bill. It is our job to decide where that
money should be spent, and without this bill, the President will make
that decision, not us.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). The gentleman
from California is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, let me say very quickly to my distinguished
colleague from Mississippi that the $275 billion is against the
backdrop of $300 billion a year that began during the Reagan era, when
this military budget skyrocketed from $173 billion, went up well over
$200-some odd, and leveled out at $300 billion during the decade of the
1980's. So I would remind my colleagues, compared to what? We never
should have been spending $300 billion a year on the military budget.
To now spend $275 billion a year in the context of the post-cold-war
world, when there is no Soviet Union and when there is no strategic
threat out there to the United States, is an appalling statement.
I would finally like to conclude with this on a very personal note. I
take great pride, Mr. Speaker, in not attacking Members of Congress on
this floor. If we want to debate, I am prepared to debate anybody in
the Chamber on the substantive issue. That is my job and
responsibility. I would simply admonish my colleagues that when we
disagree, as ardently and as emotionally as we disagree, we should
never call into play the motives of any individual Member or we should
never challenge any individual Member of Congress, particularly when
they are not there to defend themselves. I think we ought to be about
our business with a much more dignified fashion. I think when we
elevate the level of the debate to substance and policy and priorities,
we are at our highest and best. When we reduce ourselves to
personalities, it seems to me that is when we are not reflecting the
best face of the most deliberative body in the world.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina is
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of the Members on
the Committee on National Security and all the staff for the hard work
they have done over a long period of time. On both sides of the aisle
we have done our job.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and I came to Washington,
at the same time, as has been mentioned a while ago. We come to the
table sometimes from different perspectives, but we have gotten along
over the years. Mr. Dellums was chairman the last time and I was
ranking member. This time the situation is reversed. I have always
enjoyed our working relationship. I believe very strongly in what the
gentleman believes in, and that is he is to to express himself and
maintain his position. He does it very well, better than anybody I
know, as a matter of fact. I respect him for that.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report started out a good while ago as a
bipartisan effort on our committee. We got a good vote out of our
committee in the very beginning. I think by the vote we will have today
we will show this will be a bipartisan effort again.
But I want to remind my colleagues, as I said earlier, we still
revisit two very important questions, national missile defense and the
U.N. command and control of our troops. These things

[[Page H799]]
will be revisited in the future, and people will have a chance to
express themselves at length.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference
report.
This bill is virtually identical to the defense authorization the
Congress approved last month. The bill was unacceptable then and
remains so today.
Like its predecessor, the defense authorization before us today calls
for spending $7 billion more than the amount requested by the Secretary
of Defense. Like the first defense authorization, this bill contains
$493 million to begin procurement of additional B-2 bombers--a plane
the Defense Department insists it does not need.
In fairness to the bill's authors, the conference report before us
drops the requirement that the United States deploy a national
ballistic missile defense system by the year 2003. I applaud this
change. There is serious doubt as to whether an effective missile
defense system could be ready for deployment in 7 short years. Surely
it makes more sense to continue our program to develop an effective
missile defense system before we prematurely mandate its deployment.
In addition, deployment of a national system would almost certainly
violate the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, perhaps with the result of
jeopardizing continued Russian implementation of real arms reductions
called for by the START I and START II treaties.
The bottom line is that this defense bill spends billions more than
necessary on weapons we do not need. For this reason, I will vote
against it.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today does not
fit the direction we should be taking in the post-cold-war world.
Excessive spending on weapons systems that are not needed is not the
path to security. At the same time as it provides improvements for the
quality of life for our soldiers, this bill also contains punitive
provisions targeting HIV-positive personnel. But more importantly this
measure does not provide guidance or proper policy for the mission of
our forces today much less tomorrow.
Our 20,000 troops in Bosnia are there to monitor a peace agreement,
to provide for the growth of peace. Despite the contrary objections,
our troops in Bosnia are engaged in a clearly defined mission. In this
effort our allies are assisting. Some of the most strident critics of
Bosnia voice no objection to the out on sync policy regarding the long
time deployment and stationing of United States troops and sailors
abroad. This bill certainly does not address the issue of burden
sharing or the basis for such U.S. commitments. With the end of the
cold war, our role in Europe and around the world has changed greatly.
We no longer need to fear a massive attack from Communist forces. Yet
the troops sent to Europe during the cold war remain there with no
significant redefinition of our role, literally 100,000 U.S. troops,
men and material, deployed as if the world has not changed. We shoulder
the burden of defense for other regions and countries with the
attenuate expensive defense bills, spending on unnecessary planes,
helicopters, and ships. We urgently need to realistically reassess this
situation, particularly as cuts are sought in programs which help the
American people. At home military bases are closed, with significant
sacrifice by many communities, but abroad the same rules and sacrifice
are not advanced.
We need to reexamine the way we deploy and operate our forces in the
world. We need to define their mission for today and tomorrow as has
been done in the Bosnian operation with just a 1-year mission. Our
allies must assist further with the heavy lifting involved with
providing them security. Clearly military spending should not be
increasing while other necessary programs are deeply cut.
This bill authorizes the spending laid out in the Defense
appropriations bill. While a mandated antimissile defense system was
removed from the bill, the billions of added dollars in spending,
dollars that the Pentagon did not request, remains in the measure. The
shift to national missile defense is still contained in this bill. B-2
planes not requested by the Pentagon are authorized, $493 million more
than was requested. Other new planes and weapons systems are also
included, contrary to our needs in the view of the Pentagon. This new
spending is not necessary and if we reassessed our security
relationships with our allies, if we shared this defense responsibility
more equitably, even more dollars could be taken from these accounts.
But the fact is that even after the Pentagon has stated its opposition
to numerous programs, a small miracle in and of itself, this 104th
Congress beats its chest on budget balancing while lavishing dollars on
pet projects rather than asking the tough questions that the tenor of
the times and balancing the budget would demand.
While the spending on weapons systems increases, important programs
do not get adequate funding. The legacy of our struggle in the cold war
must be addressed. Environmental cleanup of military bases, arsenals,
and damage from the production of nuclear weapons need to be carried
through. Yet this bill reneges in this measure, providing $280 million
less than what is needed to accomplish the job of environmental
cleanup. We should not leave this problem for future generations, an
environmental deficit is equally unacceptable. These environmental
hazards are real people security problems, where there should be no
question of our mission.

The legislation before us muddles our defense missions. It does not
reflect a proper assessment of what we should and need to do. Congress
can and should do better. Our allies need to know that we expect them
to accept responsibility for their defense. The cold war is over and
the ability and role of the United States has changed but much in this
measure reflects business as usual. We can not afford business as
usual. I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
express my strong objection to two specific elements contained in the
fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization conference agreement.
First, I must take strong offense to the suggestion that the members
of our armed services, who have served our country honorably through
times of war and peace, should be discharged merely due to contracting
HIV. Military personnel must be judged on their ability to perform
their assigned duties. Retaining service members who test positive for
HIV but demonstrate no further evidence of illness should not be
revised due to a flagrantly political agenda. Discharging experienced
soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen merely for their testing
positive for a virus is a patently inequitable action is clearly based
on a prejudicial attitude towards HIV. Further, we owe it to the
American people to not add fuel to the fire of hysteria concerning HIV.
If otherwise capable of performing their duties, our servicemembers
deserve the right to continue defending our Nation.
Second, this conference report denies military personnel or
dependents the right to obtain safe, legal abortions at overseas U.S.
military facilities, except in cases of incest, rape, or danger to the
life of the mother. I must ardently protest the denial of a basic
constitutional right to the military women who so diligently protect
our vital national security interests by serving overseas.
Servicemembers deserve the very best we have to offer, in all regards.
We simply cannot deny them the very same civil rights we grant every
other American, the rights they are sworn to defend with their lives.
Anything less would be to reduce military women to the rank of second-
class citizens.
The members of the armed services perform a necessary and vital
function in defending our national interests and our liberty. Just as
they struggle to protect our Nation, we must endeavor to protect their
fundamental human rights.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference
agreement. The majority conferees may have reached an agreement with
the President. In fact they eliminated several objectionable proposals
like national missile defense, and limitations on the President's
ability to engage in contingency operations. However, these changes are
cosmetic. The overall levels of funding are still higher than last
year's levels. The bill still authorizes $7.1 billion more than the
President's request. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will
tell you how much this report does for military personnel to improve
their lives. Well, I rise to tell you what it does to military
personnel.
First, this conference report violates the rights of women on
military bases around the world by forbidding them to exercise their
right to have an abortion they pay for themselves.
Second, this conference report discriminates against people who are
HIV-positive, by forcing the military to discharge HIV-positive
personnel within 6 months of confirmation of their status.
They would be discharged regardless of their competence, or current
health.
The Department of Defense objects to this policy, as a loss of
valuable man-hours. DOD has its own criteria for medical discharge, and
will release these people when they cannot perform their duty any
further.
Not only does the bill burden military personnel, it also makes it
harder to balance the budget in future years. For the first time in
decades, we have begun departing from the ``full-funding'' principle.
In past years, Congress requested that the total cost of a project is
budgeted in the current fiscal year. In fiscal year 1996 we have paid
for two destroyers, but authorized three.
The $7.1 billion increase above the President's request is a token
down payment on hundreds of billions of dollars shown the road.
Third, the B-2 bomber received an increase of $493 million just to
keep the production line open, even though the plane has yet to meet
many of its mission requirements in flight testing. To actually
purchase the planes would

[[Page H800]]
cost us $15 billion if we bought 20 more B-2's at a rate of 3 per year.
We cannot commit to this kind of spending and balance the budget.
Vote ``no'' on the conference report.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this
conference report, although I have serious reservations regarding one
key provision. I am particularly concerned about the deletion of
language from the earlier conference report limiting the President's
ability to place U.S. troops under operational control of the United
Nations [UN] until the President certifies to Congress that it is in
the national security of the United States to do so.
It is unfortunate that the President chose to veto the entire defense
bill over a common sense provision overwhelmingly supported by the
American people. Later this year, I will be working with colleagues on
separate legislation to incorporate this provision limiting U.N.
command and control. I hope to see the day that our soldiers will no
longer be put in harm's way under a flag of a foreign country, without
their support.
However, I strongly support the provisions in this bill that finally
resolves the COLA disparity between military retirees and Federal
civilian retirees imposed by the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
This is great news to thousands of military Washington retirees who
feel the same inflationary pressures as Federal civilian retirees.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the National Security
Committee, I want the record to reflect my support for the fiscal year
1996 DOD authorization act. While I do not support every provision in
this conference report, on balance it moves our military and our
country in the right direction.
At a time when thousands of American men and women are deployed
abroad in various peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, we must
provide them with the support they need and deserve. This authorization
includes improvements in basic pay allowances for military personnel,
and cost of living adjustments for military retirees. It includes
family housing units for Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts to
enhance the quality of life for military personnel and their families.
It retains a commitment to the successful and battle-tested F/A-18
program and the Black Hawk helicopter program. It also contains
language I authored to name a Navy ship after congressional medal of
honor recipient Joe Vittori of Beverly, Massachusetts.
I would like to note, for the record, my opposition to the provision
in this bill authorizing additional B-2 bombers, and language to
promote a social agenda within our military. In committee, and on the
House floor, I opposed the measure to ban all abortions in military
hospitals and the proposal to terminate any Defense Department employee
who tests positive for HIV. The Defense Department is capable of
supervising and implementing its own personnel policies without
unnecessary congressional intervention.
I voted for the DOD authorization conference report on December 15,
when it passed the House the first time. I hope this important
legislation will proceed through Congress as soon as possible and the
President will sign it into law.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 287,
nays 129, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 16]

YEAS--287

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chambliss
Christensen
Clayton
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meek
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Traficant
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NAYS--129

Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Becerra
Beilenson
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Cardin
Chabot
Chrysler
Clay
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gordon
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martini
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McInnis
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Minge
Moakley
Morella
Nadler
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Torricelli
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Watt (NC)
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--17

Berman
Boehlert
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
Chenoweth
Clement
Oxley
Rangel
Rose
Smith (MI)
Torkildsen
Towns
Ward
Waters
Waxman
Wyden
Young (AK)

{time} 1514

Ms. RIVERS and Mr. SHAYS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________