C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman if he would respond to that.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4103) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for bringing this motion to instruct before the House. I do not have any problem with what he is suggesting here because this is what we have been trying to do since we became the majority party and I have had the privilege of chairing this subcommittee. We have tried our very best to eliminate any pork-type spending in the defense bill. Now we are dealing with 435 Members of the House, 100 Members of the other body, and sometimes it might not be quite as easy as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would suggest, but we do work at it. And another reason I am glad that he raised this issue: Part of his motion says to apply those funds to alleviate high-priority military readiness needs for spare parts, quality of life, training exercises, retention bonuses and recruitment incentives. That is really one of the big things that we did in the House bill where we added to the President's budget. And we would admit the President's budget was very short in those areas. In our committee we added $215 million over the President's budget for those spare parts. More is needed. There are still airplanes in hangars that cannot fly because they do not have spare parts to fix them. There are other problems with spare parts throughout the services. So we agree with that, that we need more money in spare parts. Quality of life: We added right at a billion dollars for quality-of- life issues, and one of the things that we added over the President's budget was for housing for people who work in the military and live in military housing, so that they have a decent place to live, a decent quality of life. And despite the fact that in the last 3 years we have added considerable money over the President's budget, there is still much to be done to repair and maintain some of the military housing. For training shortfalls, again as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) refers to it, he is right. We added $560 million over the President's budget. These are congressional initiatives over the President's budget for training shortfalls, retention and recruiting, again a serious problem. People are leaving the military in large numbers. Recruiting schedules are off. Except for the Marine Corps, who are on schedule, the other services are behind in their recruiting. So we added $85 million over the President's budget for retention and for recruiting. We understand these problems, and we are doing the best we can. But I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there have been many programs that have been created by the Congress that the Pentagon did not want at the time, and most of those have proved to be very successful. I want to talk about just one or two of them. Remember our committee was involved some years back in saying to the Defense Department that we need more sealift, we need the ability to get there from here, and the Pentagon objected; they did not like this idea at all. But we went ahead, and we did it anyway, and we bought the fast sealift ships. When Desert Shield, the buildup to Desert Storm, came about, they were all thanking their lucky stars that Congress pushed the program to create the sealift. Airlift falls into the same category. We pushed the C-17, which now everyone in the world says is one of the smartest things we ever did. Again a push by the Congress over the objections of the Pentagon. In the last 3 years we have had to add over a billion dollars, congressional adds, because the President's budget was so short when it dealt with health issues, when it dealt with the health care of those who serve in the military and their families. The list is very long, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and to all those in the House, we recognize our responsibility to the Members of the House and to the Members of the other body, and we recognize our responsibility to those who serve in uniform. I have a son who is enlisted in the military, and I can tell my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), he does not get enough money, he does not get paid enough. He does not have to live on food stamps because mom and dad tend to take care of some of his other financial requirements. But the lower ranks in the military are not paid enough. And the congressional initiative for fiscal year 1999 is to increase the President's budget request for pay raises by another half a percent. Not enough, not enough yet, but at least a signal to those who serve in the military that we recognize their needs. So what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is I do not object to the gentleman from Wisconsin's motion because I agree with it. But I wanted to point out that we are trying to do the very things that his motion directs us to do, and as we go through this conference, we will continue the effort to make sure that whatever comes out in the final defense appropriations bill will be something that the military has a requirement for, that it responds directly to our national security and that there is a real need for it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very distinguished member of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, who is also a very distinguished fighter pilot.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. I wanted to explain, and again, I have had a number of questions from Members as to what I intended to do on the Obey motion. As I said in my first comments, I intend to support it, because I think it is appropriate that we make sure that whatever goes into the defense appropriations bill actually deals with national defense. So I have no problem with that. In fact, I do support it. But I wanted to make this point. There is a serious shortfall list that the services, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps have provided to us, as members of the subcommittee, listing things that they need, but they could not fit into the overall budget. Now, many of the Members who have asked to have congressionally-directed adds put in this bill, many of those Members are asking that the shortfall list be dealt with. The Members who are very knowledgeable on national defense issues in this House, and there are many who are knowledgeable, they are working toward the same shortfall list that the Department of Defense has provided for us during our hearings. We will be very careful to make sure that anything that we add over the budget will fit into the category of having a direct national defense effect, and number 2, that there is a requirement for it. So for those who are questioning how I intend to vote on the Obey motion, I intend to support it because I see nothing at all wrong with it. Mr. Speaker, I want to take another minute. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) mentioned the F-14. He is right, the F-14 had a pretty serious safety record. I led the fight in the committee for years to reengine the F-14s to eliminate the TF-30 engine that was causing many of the accidents and the problems. As the airplane got older, the Defense Department decided not to continue the reengining program because the airplanes would be going out of the inventory. But those F-14s that are going out of the inventory are not nearly as old as some of the C-130s that we are replacing with those that we add today. Some are as many as 40 years old. Yes, some of them are hurricane hunters. Others are refueling tankers used by the Marine Corps and are 40 years old. I just do not think that people who are in uniform and given a mission to fly into a hostile situation should have to fly an airplane that is 40 years old. Frankly, an airplane at 40 years old should not be in the air. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to instruct, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, during the observance of ``Older Americans Month,'' the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council's Area Agency on Aging, in cooperation with the Pinellas County School Board, sponsored an essay contest in which young students were asked to write about their favorite older person. Bryan Bardin, an 11-year-old student at Bay Vista Fundamental School in St. Petersburg, Florida, was awarded first place for his essay honoring his grandmother, Mary Aucremann. This outstanding essay was published in The St. Petersburg Times and I would like to share it with my colleagues today. Not only do I commend Bryan for his writing, but I also thank his grandmother for being such a great inspiration to her grandson and to each of us who learn of her good works through his words. Bryan Bardin, 11, First Place It's almost as hard to find a Good Samaritan as it is to find a needle in a haystack. By definition, Good Samaritans are ready to give a helping hand, do for others before doing for themselves and set a good example. I think my grandma is a true Good Samaritan. She is always giving of her time and energy, she sets a good example all the time, and she has the biggest and kindest heart of anyone I know. My grandma Mary Aucremann (Granny) is a very busy person. If you were to graph how she spends her time using a pie chart, you would find there is only a small slice left for herself. She takes Meals on Wheels dinners to people she doesn't even know. She volunteers some of her time at Cedarkirk, our church camp, repairing anything that needs to be fixed. Some of her time goes to her friends who need her to help them with their errands or problems. A large slice of her time is used helping us, her family, with our projects, problems and periodic puppy demands. For example, we went to Michigan last year, and Granny was able to pet-sit our three hamsters and our dog. She had to take our dog, Zoe, and three times a day and feed her once a day. She also had to feed and clean all of the hamsters. This sounds easy, but it rained 90 percent of the time. Zoe got as dirty as a pig that had rolled in the mid. So Granny had to give her a bath. Even though all this happened, I think she will do it again this year. I look up to many people, but Mom says Granny is the best role model for anyone. Like the Boy Scout oath, which says, ``To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight,'' Granny exercises regularly to keep ``physically strong.'' When she turned 60, she went back to school to learn accounting so she could do the taxes of her children and anyone else who needs help. This keeps her ``mentally awake.'' Granny is a Christian and lives by the Bible to keep herself ``morally straight.'' My grandma loves to keep busy by square- and line-dancing. I love her and I love being with her. Granny has the absolute biggest heart I've ever seen. I think her heart is what holds the family together. She's always there for me and probably everyone else in the world! She loves everything and everyone she comes across. Once, Granny, my mom and I went to Sam's for some food; Granny saw a calendar full of cute puppy pictures and cried over it. She also comes to all of our school, Scouts and other events. For example, she and my grandfather, Poppop, came to look at my science fair open house, my music concert and my spaghetti dinner. They also came to the Great American Teach- In. Very recently, Granny had open-heart surgery. We all missed her turkey for Thanksgiving, even though my mom's turkey wasn't that bad. I still don't understand why the doctor had to fix Granny's heart; it seemed fine to me. I love my Grandma, my true Good Samaritan, good role model, always giving, big-hearted, kind and loving grandmother. Even if her heart was broke one time, it was, is and will always be perfect to me.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until midnight, Wednesday, July 8, 1998, to file a privileged report to accompany a bill making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until midnight, Wednesday, July 8, 1998, to file a privileged report to accompany a bill making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to the gentleman that I would be pleased to keep the chairman of the Committee on International Relations fully informed about the status of this provision during our conference committee. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and I have discussed this, and we have an understanding with each other that we will certainly do that.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman discussed this amendment with me several days ago. We agree and accept the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman by saying first that I have given my assurance to the chairman of his committee; second, we do not set the price for these ships; third, without these transfers, these ships are going to be mothballed or cut up into scraps. Finally, who they are going to would primarily be to NATO allies for their own defense.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I do not set the price. We do not set the price.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman knows that we do support this program, despite the fact that it was not included in the President's budget. We did provide some $11 million for the program. We intend to support this program in conference.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we agree that the Department of Defense should follow the law and obey the law. We appreciate the gentleman calling this to the attention of the House. We accept the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I would assure the gentleman that I will work with my House and Senate colleagues in conference to develop the appropriate modifications to these subsections, and will continue to work with the gentleman from New York to reach a mutually satisfactory outcome on this matter.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address the issue of the rule. Following adoption of the rule, we are going to be debating a lot of the issues about the bill itself. When we get into the bill itself shortly and, hopefully, my colleagues will hear from me and others that this is a good bill as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. There are many, many requirements for our own national security effort that we are not meeting in this bill because of the lack of funds. But we need to get this rule adopted so that we can get to this bill, get it into conference, and do the best we can to provide for a strong national security. I want to note with appreciation the gentleman on the minority side who has presented their case on this rule today, because he has always been a strong supporter of national defense. Some of those votes were fairly close on occasion. I appreciate that support. But now to have this fuss on this rule about the Y2K problem I think is maybe just not ``I'm late, I'm late, I'm late,'' as the gentleman from Texas said, but the fact is that maybe someone else is late, but not necessarily us. When the subcommittee met, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I worked together for weeks and weeks and weeks to present a bill that we thought met the requirements of the national security requirements with the few dollars available. We decided that the Y2K problem was important. We were, frankly, amazed that we had no requests from the administration for the Y2K solution. We do not know what the solution is today, but we know we better get started sooner rather than later, or we are really going to be ``I'm late, I'm late, I'm late'' as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has suggested. So we did this. The full committee agreed to this. There was some debate about it. The full committee agreed to it. But subsequently the Committee on Rules decided, along with the leadership of the majority party, that the Y2K problem in the Defense bill, and the Y2K problem provided for in the Treasury, Postal bill and other defense issues should be taken from the respective bills and put into one freestanding bill that would call attention to the fact that there was a serious problem with the Y2K issue. At the stroke of midnight on December 31, 1999, we are going to encounter a serious problem, if in fact we do not solve the problem prior to that time. I listened to the speech of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). It was basically the same speech that I made in the committee and at the Committee on Rules and at other places, and I agree. The gentleman from Wisconsin and I do not agree all that often, but I agree with the things that he said, because he said the same things I had been saying. I will make it a little more of a concern for Members. In the Defense Department, there are approximately 2 million computers. There are 25,000 computer systems in the Defense Department. Two thousand eight hundred of those computer systems are mission critical. Only about a third of those are able to deal with the Y2K problem. So we do have to move ahead and settle this issue. What we need to do is adopt this rule, get this bill passed in the House, get in the conference and make way for the freestanding bill that is going to provide the money for Y2K and other emergency issues. Let us not make this a political football. This defense bill has not been political since I have been here, since the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) was chairman, since I have been chairman. It has never been political. National defense, national security, and intelligence should never be political. The interest of the Nation has got to be above the interest of the politicians. Mr. Speaker, I say, let us pass the previous question, let us pass the rule, let us get into the bill and let us move along so that we can then get to the freestanding bill that will provide for the emergency funding that we need to address this emergency issue.