Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. It is not against a high-up?

Mr. DICKS. I strike those words. We have tested it against some decoys.

Mr. DICKS. Okay. I cannot get into any classified information.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will yield for a personal inquiry, maybe the gentleman would like to join me in advocating bombers as a much more economical way to proceed as these expensive fighters.

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman said the fall of next year, I believe. I checked with the staff, it is the fall of this year.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4542, a bill to designate the Washington Opera in Washington, DC, as the National Opera. The Washington Opera has an impressive history that has earned its position as one of opera's premier venues. The Washington Opera continued to grow and flourish. In 1980, the company has grown from a total of 16 performances and 4 operas to 80 performances and 8 operas, while the budget has increased from $2 million to more than $25 million. In 1980, the opera did not own a single opera set; by the spring of 2000 the company had originated and built 61 new productions, becoming one of the most prolific producing companies in the United States. The Washington Opera prides itself by providing world-class productions for its audiences. The Washington Opera became the first American Opera Company to produce a repertory season in two separate theaters. Giving performances in the 2,200 seat Opera House and the more intimate 1,100 seat Eisenhower theaters allow the company to perform in settings that reflect each opera's proper acoustical ambiance. Along with providing quality entertainment, The Washington Opera contributes to the education and diversity of the community. The Education and Community Programs serve a diverse population of public, private and the home school students that are 31% Anglo, 27% African- American, 33% Latino, and 8% Asian. Roughly 70% of those served by Washington Opera programs are students between the ages 5 to 18 of various needs and abilities. Adults constitute the remaining 30%, of which 40% are senior citizens. Among other programs, The Washington Opera has developed teaching methods that provide educators with tools to engage students in the learning process. At a young age, students learn about the value of the arts. There are 22 programs each providing performance experiences, curricular enhancement activities and professional development opportunities for both teachers and young artists. These programs foster enthusiasm and help enrich our youths' educational experience. Under the jurisdiction of Artistic Director Placido Domingo, The Washington Opera's reputation continues to increase. The Washington Opera plays to standing-room-only audiences at the Kennedy Center Opera House and Eisenhower Theater. The Washington Opera has earned its position of leadership in the musical world without the critical governmental support typically offered to most world capitals, in a city without the strong business base that helps fund many U.S.. opera companies. The Washington Opera has requested this legislation to designate The Washington Opera as the ``National Opera.'' There are precedents for granting private entities a ``national'' designation. For example, the National Aquarium in Baltimore and the National Aviary in Pittsburgh both received their ``national'' designation through acts of Congress. Such a designation does not bring with it federal funding or a federal subsidy. This change will grant the group further prominence, which, in turn, may expand ticket sales, improve fundraising capabilities and most importantly, broaden the opera's community programs in an effort to influence a greater breadth of individuals.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations for 22 years and a former member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I rise to oppose the motion to recommit. First of all, the Bonior motion to recommit violates GATT provision article 1, because you cannot condition most favored nation status, MFN, or NTR, so this is a killer amendment. The President, by the way, already has the authority to withdraw at any time MFN or NTR status for the People's Republic of China. Also, under article 21 of GATT, the United States has unilateral authority to exert its national security exception for any reason. Clearly reacting to an attack on Taiwan would meet the security exception. The U.S. can withdraw MFN or NTR clearly under those circumstances without having to in any way compensate China. And WTO members have wide discretion to invoke its GATT 21 rights. This authority has gone back for many years. We have exerted it against Cuba, we have exerted it against Nicaragua, and it has been sustained in every instance. So this amendment is not necessary, it is a killer amendment, and I hope that the House will reject the motion to recommit.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, extending permanent normal trade relations to China and supporting its accession to the World Trade Organization greatly benefits the United States. By encouraging participation in international organizations that facilitate the rule of law, I believe that this agreement is also in the best interest of the Chinese people. By approving PNTR, we will be enabling the United States to take advantage of the across-the-board reductions in tariff barriers that we negotiated as terms for our approval of China's accession to the World Trade Organization. Agricultural tariffs will be substantially reduced on several priority products, including a 66 percent cut on the tariff for apples, that will obviously have a large impact on my State of Washington and other apple producing areas of our country. China also agreed to lift its longstanding ban on the import of wheat and to increase the quota by more than 400 percent. China agreed to participate in the Information Technology Agreement and to eliminate tariffs on products such as software, computers, and semiconductors. Also China agreed to slash tariffs on industrial goods by an average of 62 percent, enabling America's manufacturers to compete much more evenly in the Chinese marketplace. The WTO accession agreement also contains provisions that will help other industries in which the U.S. is a world leader--telecommunications, insurance and banking just to name a few. The approval last week of a market access agreement between China and the European Union further adds to the benefits we will enjoy with China's accession to the WTO, as the best terms of each agreement negotiated by the Chinese must be extended to all members of the WTO. More agricultural tariffs will be cut, including those on wheat gluten and Washington wines. Several more tariffs on industrial goods will also be reduced, liberalization of the telecommunications industry will be accelerated, and United States law firms will be authorized to offer legal services in China. In return, we do not have to change anything--not one tariff, nor one regulation currently enforced by the United States. All we must do, according to WTO rules, is to extend permanent normal trade relations to China. Those of my colleagues that argue that our record trade deficit with China is a reason to oppose this bill must consider this point. There is nothing about this bill that will lead to an increase in the amount of goods we import from China; rather, this is all about slashing Chinese tariffs against United States goods which will lead to a substantial increase in United States exports to China. If you are truly concerned about addressing the United States trade deficit, you should vote for this bill. Some are opposing this bill, claiming that China has rarely adhered to prior trade agreements in the past. In my judgment, opponents claiming this point should be eager to support this agreement. By entering the WTO, China will finally be participating in an organization whose sole purpose to enforce trade agreements. A few years ago, we had to beg, cajole, and plead with China in order to persuade them to provide any enforcement of the intellectual property agreement established between our two countries. With accession to the WTO, we will have an impartial adjudicator to hear the case and determine what redress is warranted. No longer will we have to rely on the honesty and effectivness of the Chinese Government to ensure that they abide by trade agreements. My good friends in the labor community have expressed grave concerns over the effects this bill will have on American and Chinese workers. I deeply repect their concerns, but I believe that they are best addressed by voting for this bill. Currently, United States manufacturers and service providers struggle to enter the Chinese market becaue of high tariffs and often insurmountable red tape. By agreeing to cut their tariffs and reduce burdensome rules, China will be creating an incredible opportunity for American-made goods to finally penetrate their market. I firmly believe that this will be a real job creator in the United States, and ultimately of great benefit to U.S. workers. For this reason, the 27,000 member International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 751 western Washington endorsed this legislaiton. I cannot claim that the benefit to the Chinese worker will be as quick or as quantifiable as are the gains to American workers, but I do believe that accession to the WTO is in the best, long-term interest of the Chinese worker. This agreement will contribute to what we are already seeing in many parts of China--the growth of economic freedom and a vibrant middle class. I also respect the convictions of those who consistently oppose any engagement with China because of China's disappointing record on human rights and religious freedoms. However, I side with many who, like the Dalai Lama and dissidents Bao tong and Dai Qing, recognize that engaging the Chinese and bringing them into international organizations that support the rule of law will be more effective in promoting freedom in China than will isolating China from the world community. In my justment, the most important reason to support this bill and Chinese accession into the WTO is for our own national security. By voting against this bill, we would be encouraging the isolation of China from the international community and hostility toward the United States. History shows that isolating a nation in this fashion often leads to mistrust, military buildup, and conflict. A belligerent China, possessing nuclear weapons and the largest land army in the world would be a grave prospect. Conversely, I believe that maintaining our trade link with China will continue to provide us with a stable foundation

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there may be a motion to recommit that involves what would happen if there was armed conflict between China and Taiwan. In my judgment, if this motion were approved, language would be attached to the bill requiring the United States to withdraw PNTR from China in the event of a Chinese attack on or blockade of Taiwan. This language is in direct violation of GATT Article I which requires that all WTO members grant each other ``any advantage, favor, privilege, or immunity'' provided to other countries ``immediately and unconditionally.'' And this would, in fact, be a condition. A condition like the one included in the motion to recommit is discriminatory and disadvantageous, violating this fundamental WTO principle. If it is adopted, we will lose the full benefits to America's farmers and workers of the strong rules-based and enforceable market opening agreement we negotiated in November. Let me assure my colleagues that even without the approval of the motion to recommit, the United States and the Congress retain the authority to take whatever actions we deem appropriate to address our national security concerns in the event of a blockade or attack on Taiwan. Article 21 of the GATT agreement states that nothing in the agreement ``shall be construed . . . to prevent any contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests . . . taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations.'' This provision has enabled the United States to conduct embargoes against Czechoslovakia in 1949, Nicaragua in 1985, and the embargo we have maintained against Cuba since 1962. All of these nations were WTO members at the time, and in each case the United States's position was upheld. Though this motion seeks to protect Taiwan, I would argue that it will do just the opposite. Approving this motion will send a dire message to the Chinese that no longer is the United States interested in working with China openly, no longer do we seek to change China by bringing it into the greater community of nations and exposing it to the rule of law. Rather, we will be starting down the road of isolating China from the world and encouraging mistrust and conflict. If this latter course of action is taken, I firmly believe that Taiwan will be put at risk. Indeed, the Taiwanese Government is the first to point out these points in its support of Chinese accession to the WTO and its support of our extension of PNTR for China. If my colleagues are truly concerned about the welfare of Taiwan, I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit and to vote for the bill.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for his statement. We are still substantially below where we need to be in modernization. We have got OPTEMPO issues. We have got spare parts problems, real property maintenance.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. I think this amendment would be counterproductive. If we have an argument with our allies, we should sit down with our NATO partners and negotiate directly with them. But to come to the floor of the House of Representatives and try to set a date certain on this matter to me is foolish and counterproductive. I also think it is a very dangerous precedent. We are there in Kosovo and in Yugoslavia because we feel it is in our national interest to be there. And we have conducted ourselves appropriately. We have worked with NATO for stability in Europe, a very major goal, and now to say that if these European countries by a certain date do not do something, we are going to pull out and do it from the Congress is undermining the ability of the commander in chief. We only can have one President at a time. I strongly oppose this amendment and urge its overwhelming defeat.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is absolutely correct. If we pass this amendment, only 11 Tridents would have the D5. We need 14. We are coming down from 18 to 14. The other problem is that the existing missile, the C4 missile, is at the end of its useful life. In order to retrofit it and improve it, in order to use it over the lifetime of the submarine, we would have to spend almost as much money to do that as to get the existing D5. We are also 50 D5s short of inventory requirements. Having said that, this missile, the D5 missile, is the only one we have today in actual production. This is the only missile the United States is producing. Therefore, killing this program would end all of our active missile procurement at a time when I think that would be a serious mistake. Also, if they do this, then the United States would have to either build more land-based missiles or more bombers at a much higher cost than finishing out this particular program. The D5 is our most effective and accurate missile, and I believe that the undersea deterrent is the most survivable part of our triad. We have an advantage here that we would unilaterally be giving up at a time when we are asking the Russians to enter into a START III agreement at lower levels. The leverage for that is because of our ballistic missile submarines. That is where we have an advantage over the Soviets. We would be unilaterally giving up that advantage. It makes no sense. The D5 has been a first rate system. We need to backfit it on the four Pacific Tridents. It is part of our overall defense plan. It is something that this administration favors. Who favors it? The President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, that is who supports it, along with, I hope, a majority of the House of Representatives.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday of this week, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee will be marking up our appropriations bill for FY 2001. I am very concerned about the fact that the emergency supplemental has not been enacted yet by the other body. In fact, I have written a letter to the distinguished majority leader asking that they take up this emergency supplemental as quickly as possible. We are now faced with an emergency situation in the area surrounding Los Alamos, New Mexico. We also have nine other wildfires, and I am told 67 forest fires raging nationally, many of them in the west, and the money for fighting these forest fires will run out, the emergency money will run out by the end of May, unless Congress enacts this supplemental. What we are asking for is $200 million for the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM does a great job of fighting the forest fires, along with the forest service; we are asking there for $150 million, or a total of $350 million. This year 2000 will probably be one of the worst forest fire years since 1994, and also 1999 was a year where we had many devastating fires as well. I want to compliment the majority in the House for having enacted the supplemental, but now it is been languishing for several weeks, if not months, over in the other body. Madam Speaker, this is a true emergency. I do not think we should be playing appropriations politics with this issue. We need to get this money out to the BLM so that they can run their emergency center out in Idaho, we need to get this money out to the Forest Service. Secretary Babbitt has written back in early April a very impassioned plea to the majority leader in the other body urging that this emergency supplemental be taken up as quickly as possible, and there really is not any excuse. Now, if they do not want to take up the entire emergency supplemental, one possible way to move forward would be to take out these two items. The money for the BLM, the $200 million and the $150 million for the forest service, and pass that immediately, and then we can pass it here in the House, get it down to the President and take care of this situation. We cannot help but be sympathetic to see these people out in New Mexico, some 260 of them, who have lost their homes. They are living in schools and other areas. They need to know that the Federal Government is going to do everything it can to make sure that we have the resources to fight these fires and to go in and restore the ground and the areas that have been damaged. I think this is an emergency, a true emergency. I urge the leadership here in the House to meet with the leadership in the Senate and try to work out a way to get this money freed. I intend to offer these amendments as additions to the Interior Appropriations bill for 2001, hoping that maybe we can rush that bill through if it is the only way we can get action out of the other body. Again, I believe this an emergency. I think we need to act.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of clarification related to title II of the bill. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman and I both know, this bill makes available $450 million each year for Federal land acquisitions under the Land and Water Conservation Fund. While I am reticent about doing this through a permanent appropriation, I am pleased that the legislation specifies that these funds may only be expended for purchases which are included in a list of acquisitions which is approved by Congress in an annual appropriations bill. There is some confusion, however, about how the final list of land acquisitions will be determined. Under this bill, the process begins with a list submitted by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture. It is my understanding, however, that the list transmitted to the Congress is just the executive branch's proposal. The Committee on Appropriations would be obliged to review this list but then would recommend to the House those acquisitions which it considered to be the highest priority in the amounts that it considered prudent. It could add projects, delete projects, or change amounts allocated to any project based on its best judgment. In short, my reading is that the Secretary's list is just a proposal and that the committee has broad authority in making recommendations to the House on how the $450 million for land acquisition will be allocated among competing needs. Is this also the understanding of the gentleman?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this conference report and to commend my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) specifically, and those in the administration for their efforts. Bringing this package to the floor has not been easy. I want to applaud the patience and the determination both sides showed in reaching this agreement. I reluctantly opposed the conference report for the Interior appropriations bill earlier in the year because of numerous anti-environmental provisions that were attached by the other body. Thankfully we have removed or modified nearly all of those riders and significantly improved the Interior bill. Additionally, though, through our negotiations with the White House, we were able to increase funding levels for some key programs that will better protect our environment. In the last few weeks, we negotiated millions of additional dollars for the President's land legacy initiative to protect sensitive or threatened lands in this country. The administration and Congress should be proud of the benefits this compromise means to our public lands. Funding was included in both the Commerce Department as well as the Interior Department to help my State and three other West Coast States address the recent salmon listings under the Endangered Species Act. Funding for these programs was my top priority. I want to sincerely thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for working with me to provide these critical funds that will help our State protect and restore West Coast salmon provisions. Additionally, funds were included to help implement the recently negotiated treaty between the United States and Canada that will aid our efforts to recover these fish by substantially reducing their harvest. I regret that the conference agreement did not provide the requested increase for the National Endowment for the Arts, but appreciate the modest increase for the National Endowment for the Humanities. I believe there is strong public support for both of the endowments and wish the funding levels to the arts better reflected that support. Again I wish to warmly thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his tireless work on the Interior appropriations bill. These negotiations were lengthy and tedious, but he demonstrated extraordinary leadership and was instrumental in bringing this agreement to the floor today.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the conference report on the Fiscal Year 2000 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. I will explain my reasons for this position in a moment, but first I want to state categorically that my opposition to this measure does not in any way impugn the job done by the chairman of the subcommittee, my good friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). As chairman of the conference, he had the virtually impossible task of trying to bridge insurmountable differences of opinion between the Houses, the parties and the branches of Government, and I also want to at this time commend the staff of the subcommittee, Debbie Weatherly and the members of the majority staff, Del Davis, and the minority staff. These people have worked very hard under very difficult circumstances to bring this conference report, and they are highly professional people who work for the best interests of the House of Representatives. In many ways the recommendations of the conferees on this measure represent improvements compared to the bill that passed the House in July. However, in other important ways, specifically the addition of three environmentally damaging legislative riders, this agreement is much worse than the House bill and will almost certainly be vetoed by the President. The inclusion of the riders is especially troublesome given the vote of the full House on the motion to instruct conferees. Two hundred eighteen members of this House, a majority, voted to instruct conferees to support the Rahall amendment limiting the number and size of mill sites on public lands to support the Senate, the other body's position increasing funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities by $5 million each and to reject the Senate's anti-environmental riders. Unfortunately the only part of the instruction that was followed was to agree with the Senate's funding increase for the National Endowment for the Humanities. Environmentalists and the administration have roundly criticized the Senate bill. While it may be true that the conference agreement has marginally improved some of the riders, the resulting provisions are still opposed by the administration and have no place in this appropriations bill. The provisions relating to mining mill sites, delaying hard rock mining regulation, delaying oil royalty evaluation regulations, and grazing should not have been accepted by the conference. The conferees' decisions on funding for the National Endowment for the Arts is a major disappointment. Despite the fact that the conference agreement provides a total of 600 million more for agencies and programs funded in the bill than the amount in the House-passed bill and despite the fact that the House had instructed its conferees to agree with the slightly higher funding levels for the NEH, the conference ended with no increase for the arts. Once again opponents of the NEA dredged up outdated information and outright misinformation. Once again the views of the ultra-conservative caucus representing a minority of one body have been allowed to override the wishes of a majority in both Houses. Another feature of the bill that causes great concern is the inadequate funding provided for the administration's new Land Legacy program, one of the major initiatives of the 2000 budget. The administration proposal was to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund at the fully authorized level of 900 million, including roughly 800 million in the Interior appropriations bill. The conference agreement, while improving on the 190 million included in the House bill, provides only about one-third, or 266 million, of the amounts requested. While the conference agreement is 600 million higher than the House bill, funding for the administration's top priority was only increased by 75 million. The recommendation of the conferees does not even match last year's level. It is 62 million less. And last year's bill was 500 million less in total than this year. Two major parts of the President's Land Legacy initiative, the 200 million requested for conservation grants and planning assistance and the 66 million increase requested for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, did not receive any funding. Given the threat of development in and around so many of our parks, forests, refuges, and other public lands and given the strong support of acquiring and conserving these sensitive lands by a substantial majority of the American people, the failure of this bill to address these needs adequately is a serious flaw. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this conference report and avoid the imminent veto by the administration. Passing the conference report right now is futile if changes are not made. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio that I agree with him on the Park Service and on several other areas of this bill. We have made some significant progress, and no one doubts the chairman's commitment to improving our national parks, and I have appreciated the fact that he goes out and he looks at the parks. I think the fact that we are keeping these fees to improve the parks is one of the most positive things that we have done with the authorizing committee, and there are a lot of things that are positive. I do not want to paint an entirely negative picture, but unfortunately the other body keeps insisting on these riders; and some of these riders are things that I understand, being from the West. But unfortunately, they get our bill in trouble; and I wish we could convince, and I want to commend the gentleman on this, that the bill when it left the House did not have these riders. They almost, every single one of these riders was added in the other body, and so somehow I hope that we can do better in the next go round because there will be a next go round in my judgment, and we can come up with a bill that can be signed into law. I went back and looked at my own record. I have been on this committee, this is my 23rd year on the Subcommittee on the Interior. I have seldom voted against a bill, I have seldom voted against a conference report, and I regret that I have to do it today. But I am convinced that we can do better, that we can make this bill stronger, and I look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) to accomplish this task at a later date. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Appropriations, who has worked very tirelessly on all of these bills.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who has been very concerned about environmental issues and one of our outstanding new Members. (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), one of my distinguished classmates who is working on umpire reform at this very moment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman on his statement, particularly on his comments regarding the C-17. I am very pleased and I want to compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for putting in the multiyear language for the C-17. Frankly, I do not think 120 of these planes is enough. I think we are going to need more than that, simply because we do not have enough aircraft for the airlift and deployability issue. Just yesterday, General Shinseki has come up with this new program for the Army which is basically heavily reliant on deployability and having all this new equipment be able to fit into those C-130s that the gentleman mentioned. I look forward to working with him in the days ahead, and I appreciate his statement. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. This year's defense appropriations bill provides funding for many critical military needs. Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha have ensured that the Congress is addressing problems with recruiting and retention and the readiness of our Armed Forces. I thank them for their leadership on this bill. H.R. 2561 includes the final portion of a 4.8 percent pay raise for military and defense civilian personnel. This pay raise will address the pay gap between those at the Defense Department and comparable jobs in the private sector. The bill includes critical funding for Navy ship maintenance, an area where increasing backlogs have built up. This year's bill includes over $360 million more for ship maintenance activities than the appropriations bill for FY 99. And this bill has found a critical balance for the modernization priorities of all the services. In particular, I am pleased that the conferees were able to restore much of the funding in the President's Request for the F-22, air dominance fighter. Funding included in the bill will allow work to move forward on the F-22 while also providing for additional testing. The conferees also approved multiyear procurement authority for the FA-18 E&F and the C-17. This will allow us to purchase 222 F-18s for the price of 200, a significant savings. And it will allow us to take advantage of an unsolicited proposal by Boeing to provide 60 more C-17s at an average price that is 25 percent lower than the current model. These planes will address critical airlift needs revealed in Kosovo. The committee has also ensured that the weaponization of our bomber force will continue. Earlier this year, the Air Force provided Congress with a bomber road map laying out their plan to weaponize the bomber force. It was totally inadequate. Congress has provided an additional $100 million for weaponization of the B-2 bomber. These funds will allow for the purchase of deployable shelters for the B-2 so that when necessary it can deploy closer to the theater of combat. We further integrate the B-2 into the larger air campaign by adding Link 16 connectivity to the B-2 along with the most advanced displays for situational awareness. We improve the in-flight replanning capability of the B-2's on-board computer systems. At the Air Force's request, we pay for the integration of the EGBU 28 bomb in the B-2's bomb bay. And we start the process of developing further improvements to the B-2's stealth. The conferees also provided funding for improvements to B-52's situational awareness systems, and for additional conventional bomb modules for the B-1B. These investments will ensure that our bomber force can continue to be as effective in the future as it was during the recent Kosovo conflict. Again, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member, and urge support of the conference report.