C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would just like to point out that this has been a rather grueling task to get us to the point where we are today. And with the strong cooperation of the members of the subcommittee on our side, on the Republican side, and on the Democratic side led by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the tremendous work of our staff with the principal staffer director Kevin Roper and the staff that worked with him, as well as Greg Dahlberg, who is the principal staffer of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], we have put together what I think is an excellent defense bill, with one major problem. The major problem is there are so many other items that we ought to be considering and providing for in this bill that we do not because the 602(b) allocations were not adequate to fund the necessary things that we felt were important to our Nation's security and also to the welfare and the care of those who serve in uniform. But because of the strong work done by all of those folks involved, we have a good bill. It provides the prioritized requirements of the Defense Department for all of the services. It makes a very strong statement on providing what is needed for quality of life for those who wear the uniform in defense of our Nation. Without going into a lot of detail, the bill is pretty much like it was when it passed the House before, with the exception that by the time we got to conference, our 602 allocation was reduced, so we had to reduce the number in the bill by over $600 million. Now, despite all of that, we came to conference nearly $9 billion apart on specific items. Because of the very good cooperation with our counterparts, and I want to specifically mention Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye and the Members on the Senate side, we have crafted a conference report that is, in my opinion, one of the best we have presented to the House. At this point I would like to insert a summary of the conference agreement for the Record. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25SE97.000 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25SE97.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25SE97.002

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 242, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2266) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the chairman of our subcommittee, my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Porter, for his leadership on this bill because this is a good bill that will have an impact on virtually every American family. Our subcommittee worked hard to prioritize the resources for the many important health and education programs included in this legislation. High priority was given to continued funding for the National Institutes of Health, which receives a $764.5 million or a 6 percent increase over the 1997 level and $427.1 million more than requested by the President. As I have said many times, NIH remains the preeminent biomedical research program of its kind anywhere in the world. Our investment in unlocking the mysteries of diseases and identifying new, life-saving therapies are repaid many times over in lower health care costs, a higher quality of life, and a cure for many diseases for which there was no successful treatment just a few years ago. We have continued to make great strides in the war on cancer including breast and prostate cancer, in addition to heart disease, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinsons disease, mental illness, sickle cell anemia, arthritis, osteoporosis, and other diseases that rob the young and old of years of life and lead to much pain and suffering. When we are so close to winning the battle on so many fronts, this is not the time to retreat from our commitment to remain the world leader in biomedical research. A health care area of special interest to our committee, where a small continuing investment over the past few years has paid off, is the National Marrow Donor Program. Established by Congress in 1986, we are celebrating the 10th anniversary of a working national marrow donor registry that matches potential donors with patients in need of a transplant who would otherwise die from leukemia or any one of 60 other fatal blood disorders. Since bringing to my colleagues attention the need for a national registry to provide access to a large pool of prospective unrelated individuals who might have matching bone marrow for patients in need of transplants, I have had nothing but unwavering support from the members of this committee and my colleagues in the House and Senate. The result of this effort is a program that is a true medical miracle which is saving lives every day throughout our Nation and around the world. Later this year, The National Marrow Donor Program will register it three millionth prospective donor. My colleagues may recall that early in my search for a home for the national registry, some Federal officials told me we would never recruit more than 50,000 volunteers who were willing to donate their bone marrow to a complete stranger. We proved them wrong and in doing so have given a second chance at life to thousands of men, women, and children. As the registry continues to grow, so do the number of transplants. More importantly, we have given hope to thousands of families who otherwise would have faced the prospect of certain death for a loved one. This hope circles the globe as we exchange bone marrow on a regular basis with 14 other nation's who have patterened their national registeries after our own. Because genetics play such a crucial role in a successful match, this access to potential bone marrow donors from throughout the world has helped save the lives of patients here who were unable to find a matched donor in our national registry. Indeed, bone marrow is crossing international borders on a weekly basis, saving lives here and abroad. Nothing I can think of will help bring the nation's of the world closer together. Our committee has included in the bill $15,270,000 for the continued operations of the national registry under the oversight of the Health Resources and Services Administration [HRSA]. Responsibility for the registry was transferred in 1995 from NIH to HRSA. The Navy continues to play a leading role in providing operational support and direction to the program with additional funding made available by our Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security. Other small, but significant health care programs established and supported by our subcommittee are also saving lives throughout our Nation. With the $13 million included in this legislation for the Emergency Medical Services Program for Children we are increasing public awareness and training health care professionals for the unique emergency medical needs of acutely ill and seriously injured children. More than 40 States have now established training programs to improve the quality of care available for children. The leading cause of death for them continues to be accident and injury. We have made a significant investment in this bill in other areas of preventative health care. Notably, we have included $145 million for the Centers for Disease Control's breast and cervical cancer screening program to provide early cancer detection for many low- and middle- income women who otherwise would not receive life-saving early warnings. Finally, Mr. Speaker, within the Department of Health and Human Services, we have included $14 million for the National Youth Sports Program, which gives many disadvantaged youth their first exposure to a college campus. In addition to inspiring these children to stay in school so they can one day attend college, the program also provides health care screening, hot meals, math and science enrichment, and a strong anti-drug and anti-violence message. Our subcommittee has also provided for the educational needs of our Nation's children from their preschool years through college. Once again we have increased Head Start funding, this year by $324 million to more than $4.3 billion. This is good news for Pinellas County, FL, which I am proud to say is home to a nationally recognized Head Start program that does an outstanding job in preparing our youngest students for their entry into elementary school. Also included in this legislation is $7.7 billion in grants to State and local education agencies for disadvantaged youth. This is $395 million more than is available for the current year. We have provided an additional $350 million for school improvement programs, $556 million for safe and drug free school programs, and $4.3 billion for special education. In the area of higher education, our committee has maintained its emphasis on providing direct assistance to college students. The bill includes funding to allow the maximum Pell Grant to rise to $3,000. In addition, we have increased funding for Federal work-study programs, TRIO, and minority institutions. Among the myriad of Federal agencies funded in this bill, we continue our support for the Social Security Administration and the Medicare contractors, to allow them to process claims in a timely manner and to update their technological base to improve service to older Americans. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, this is one appropriations bill which touches virtually every American family. It is also one that makes major investments in improving quality of life through health care services, important biomedical research, educating our children, and providing for the needs of our older Americans. It is a bill that deserves the support of every Member of this House because it will improve the way of life for every congressional district.

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. 2266) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, 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 back my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would announce to our colleagues in the House that it is my intention to support all of the provisions in H.R. 2266 that the House agreed to when we go to conference. The matter that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has made a motion to instruct is part of that bill, and I would advise him that we intend to support that provision in the bill in conference, and we support his motion.

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 H.R. 2266, Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all time remaining in the discussion on this amendment be limited to 20 minutes, 10 minutes to be controlled by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and 10 minutes to be controlled by myself.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I will not object to this time extension. But I think we need to make sure that both sides get fair treatment on time. And we want to say again, under our reservation, we have debated this over and over and over again. And the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has spent at least half an hour himself during the last debate. And the gentleman is correct, he is very knowledgeable on the issues. Although he is wrong most of the time, he is very knowledgeable on these national defense issues. Mr. Chairman, I may suggest this time limitation depending on how this plays out. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I do not know. So I assume the gentleman's answer is negative on limiting time?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are pleased to bring before the committee today what I think is an outstanding bipartisan national defense appropriations bill. The security of our Nation and the protection of our troops and those who serve in uniform should be nonpolitical. It should be bipartisan. This bill reflects that. This is a bipartisan bill. It was put together with the strong cooperation of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the ranking member on the subcommittee, and all of the members of the subcommittee and the staff who worked with us. We have presented a bill that is reflective of the needs of the military, reflective of the various threats that exist and potential threats that exist in the world, and it has been done in a very bipartisan fashion. This bill today, Mr. Chairman, is within the constraints and the agreements on the part of the President, on the part of the House, and on the part of the Senate as we dealt with our budget agreement. We are basically in agreement with the authorizing bills as passed by the House, from the Committee on National Security and also the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, both of which committees we appropriate for their authorization. This bill includes some $4.4 billion over the request of the President but, as I said, with the budget agreement that he has agreed to, that obviously is acceptable. This bill goes directly to the heart of our national security requirements. About 70 percent of the money appropriated in this bill goes for the personnel and the operations and maintenance of the force, salaries, allowances, housing, medical care, et cetera, et cetera. We have increased the medical allowances because there was a shortfall. The administration recognized that and asked for an increase; we provided that. We have made some very specific recommendations and changes in the bureaucracy in the Pentagon, and as we work toward making the Pentagon a triangle, we have been able to reduce funding for civilian consultants, funding for the civilian bureaucracy, and have reduced funding for military bureaucracy where it was duplicative and, in the opinion of the members of the subcommittee, was really not necessary. Mr. Chairman, all in all, we bring to this House an excellent bill. I think we can move it through here quickly. The authorizing bill from the Committee on National Security received a very large vote. The authorizing bill for Intelligence was passed by this House with a voice vote, and we expect that we should be able to move this bill quickly as well, because it pretty much tracks the contents of those two authorizing bills. Mr. Chairman, I include the following tabular material: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY97.000 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY97.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY97.002

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we are very familiar with this issue. We do support the amendment. We hope that it will be agreed to.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I appreciate the gentleman's concern for the system and its potential benefits for the pilots. The ASPJ is a valuable system. I share the gentleman's concern and will work with my colleagues on the committee and with the Department of Defense on this issue as this bill moves forward.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to address the concerns of the gentleman from Maryland about this program.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman has stated, last year we did accept this amendment. We thought it would work fine. It has worked partially. I think it is important that we continue this language. The chairman of the Committee on Rules, the very distinguished chairman, has worked with us on writing the language in such a way I think as will be very effective. I am very, very happy to accept this amendment. I think it is something that ought to be done.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Is the gentleman through?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman would let me continue, I would like to clarify that statement.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, what I was trying to say was the gentleman stood there just a few minutes ago and said no one came to the floor to talk about any weapons systems that were terminated or cancelled or stopped. That is not true. Because just a few minutes before that, I talked about Aerostat, a program that we stopped. I talked about JASSM, a program that we stopped despite the fact that there were many in the outside world who wanted to have these programs go forward. We did stop the programs. We made many cuts in the requests that we had received from all sources. I apologize to the gentleman if he is offended by my comment, but his comment offended me somewhat because we have made a list of numerous cuts and they are all listed in this report. I referred to it several times.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think they know both of us in that regard, I would say to my distinguished friend from California. Mr. Chairman, the arguments about how much we spend and invest in our national security versus the rest of the world, that argument has been made many, many times today. What is not mentioned in those debates is that we have an all-volunteer force. Unlike the Russians, unlike the Soviets had, unlike the Iranians, unlike the Chinese, unlike the North Koreans, we have an all-volunteer force. We pay the Members of our military far more substantially than these other nations pay theirs. They pay theirs almost as if it is slave labor. In fact at one point we were asked to provide funding to provide housing for Russian soldiers, which we did not do, by the way, but we were asked to do that. The point is that an all-volunteer service is very costly. Approximately 70 percent of the money appropriated by this bill does not go to buy weapons. It does not go for RDT&E or things of that nature. It goes to provide salaries and allowances and clothing and housing and medical care and training for the members of the military and their families. We are trying to do a better job in that regard. We are trying to take those lower ranked people who live in barracks that really are not fit, in my opinion, I would not want one of my children to live there. We are trying to repair those and renovate them and make the quality of life better. We are trying to get to the point that, if a mother brings her daughter into a military hospital while the husband is overseas on deployment, they do not have to wait four or five hours with a child in pain from an infected ear or something like that. Those are the things that we are trying to do in this bill. The dollars for procurement, the Joint Chiefs, the war fighters will tell you that even this bill does not provide anywhere near the modernization or procurement dollars that they, the war fighters, think that they need. I am not talking about the folks in the Pentagon. I am not talking about the budget office. I am talking about the war fighters who are deployed around the world, the commanders of those units that understand what the shortages are. There are real shortages. I know some Members get tired of me rolling out this scroll. I will not roll it out today. But it could go from one side of this well to the other listing items that are never written about in the news media or reported on radio or television. They are never the subject of some great committee hearing. But what they are are items like flashlights and compasses and small arms ammunition and things of this nature, communications gear, communications cable that need to be purchased to keep the infrastructure working. They are listed here. On this scroll it is hard to tell, but some of them have been outlined in blue ink that means we have taken care of those items that are essential. The ones that have not been outlined in blue still need to be taken care of. We do not need to cut this budget by this bill by $4 billion. We ought to go ahead and defeat this amendment and then pass the bill and get onto other business.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill (H.R. 2266) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, and that I may be permitted to include tabular and extraneous material.