C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I rise to close the debate on this amendment today. I would like to say to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], who has spent a lot of time telling us what the world is like today but obviously spent very little time listening to some other things that were said on the floor, he said, no one has said----

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I reluctantly oppose my good friend, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], because he is such a gentleman and is always so accommodating when there are legislative matters before the House. But I have to respond to some of the comments he made. He said we cannot allow defense spending to continue to go up. This, Mr. Chairman, is the 13th year in a row that defense investment has gone down. In the last 10 years, the active duty forces have declined by 714,000 uniform personnel. The civilian work force has declined 318,000 personnel. The Guard and Reserve have been reduced by 267,000 uniform personnel. In constant fiscal year 1998 dollars, the defense budget has declined by $120 billion in the last 10 years. In constant fiscal year 1998 dollars, the procurement budget has declined by $65.7 billion, or 70 percent, in the last 10 years. The budget request for procurement is the lowest since before the Korean war. So this defense budget has not been continuously going up. It has been continuously going down. And we are trying to level it off. This amendment would cut $4 billion out of this bill. The number in this bill is consistent with the defense numbers agreed to in the budget agreement. It is consistent with the House-passed budget resolution. It is consistent with the House-passed defense and intelligence authorization bills. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would undermine all of those agreements that have been agreed to by the House. Besides, this amendment would leave it to the administration or the Pentagon to determine where the cuts would be. I do not think the Members of the Congress want to allow that to happen. We are the ones that are supposed to make these kinds of decisions. The gentleman has suggested that the defense bill should have the same scrutiny as all other budgets. Let me point out, most of the other budgets have gone up. The defense budget has gone down, as I just said. But if Members will read the report published by this subcommittee, they will learn that we have scrutinized every one of these budgets. We have killed off some of the programs. We have reduced some of the programs. And we have accelerated some of the programs, as the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has suggested. So we have done that. This is a good bill. To cut $4 billion out of this bill, let me tell my colleagues what it would take. This would take it down to the President's budget number, basically. We added $60 million above the President's budget for housing allowances for members of the military. We added medical research and operations increases above the budget request for $370 million, including $125 million for breast cancer research that we talked about so much today. We provided $79 million, a 25-percent increase over last year's level, for the DOD programs dealing with Gulf war illness. We provided $99 million above the budget for combat training programs; $622 million above the budget for Navy and Air Force shortfalls in flying hours and spare parts related to flying hours, training. We provided $925 million above the budget for real property maintenance, including barracks repair and renovation. We added $184 million above the budget for the Guard and Reserve forces operation and maintenance programs; $473 million above the budget request for depot maintenance. We provided $713 million, $60 million over the President's budget, or nearly 10 percent above the budget request, for DOD counterdrug and drug interdiction programs. This list goes on and on, Mr. Chairman. Which of those programs do my colleagues want to cut? If the Shays-Frank amendment is agreed to, those will all have to be cut and a whole lot more. I just do not think the Members of this House want to do that. As we prepared to go to markup, we had requests for adds above the President's budget of $20 billion. By the time we found the duplications and where several requests included the same request, we got it down to about $12 billion above the budget request. The subcommittee worked through this problem, and we bring a bill today that is above the President's budget request but it is in line with our budget resolution, the authorization bills. We ought to defeat this amendment out of hand because it would make such a slash, a drastic meat ax cut in the defense funding for the next fiscal year. Oppose this amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman and I have discussed earlier, we are happy to accept this amendment as we did last year, and the new issue that he raises I think is a legitimate issue. We would be more than happy to address it during the conference.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we have talked to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] about this. He made several changes that we thought were important to make to this so it applied properly to the bill. Having done that, we have been prepared to accept this amendment, and we are happy to hear from the gentleman from Ohio, but we are prepared to accept the amendment. From the leadership of the subcommittee, we accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. As the gentleman knows, in each of the last 4 years, the subcommittee has supported additional funding to maintain the full fleet of B-52's. But I am sure that he is also aware that the Senate has included additional funds to keep all 94 B-52's in the active inventory. Although the House authorization committee did not authorize this for this fiscal year, the action taken by the Senate is consistent with this subcommittee's recommendation in recent years.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time, and I rise in opposition to the Nadler amendment. I understand that it is well-intentioned. Even though the program has already been slowed down with the agreement of the Congress, it is the No. 1 priority for the United States Air Force. The phrase ``air superiority'' has been used during this debate several times. Let me tell you what air superiority is. Air superiority is the ability of our pilots flying our airplanes to go into the war zone and to deny access to the air by the enemy planes, either to shoot them down or, as we did in Desert Storm, to scare them so that they run when they see our airplanes. The other part of air superiority is the soldier on the ground. The soldier on the ground, when he looks up, he wants to see an American airplane in control of the sky, he wants to know that the airplane up there is not going to drop a bomb or some kind of munition on him. That is why air superiority is so important. The F-22 will guarantee us air superiority and control of the skies in the world as we know it today. But as the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] pointed out earlier, many other countries are building new and outstanding technology aircraft. We have got to be able to keep up with that. In the year 2015, a date that has been mentioned when the F-22 might be fully capable, fully operational, the F-15, which is a tremendous airplane, will be 45 years old. My 10-year-old son has told me repeatedly that he wants to be a fighter pilot. Well, if that should happen and he cannot fly the F-22 until the year 2015, he can be flying a 45-year-old airplane. I do not want that to happen, and I do not want anybody else that is going to be flying a combat aircraft to have to fly a 40-year-old airplane. It is just not right because it takes away his advantage, it takes away his edge over the enemy. All of us pray to God that we never have to send another pilot to war or another soldier to a ground war. But unfortunately that may not be the case. But we have got to go with the best equipment, the best technology, the best training that we possibly can so that our soldiers in the air, on the ground, our sailors on the sea, under the sea have the best training, the best equipment, the best technology possible so that they can, No. 1, accomplish their mission, Mr. Chairman, but No. 2, give themselves some protection while they are at it. That is what this F-22 will do. It will help accomplish the mission and give our pilots protection and the ability to come home in their airplane, rather than come home as a POW or come home in a body bag. That is why this investment is a good investment and we ought to deny this amendment and allow the F-22 program to continue. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, several questions have been raised that really have not been answered. The question about how many B-2's does the Pentagon want or did the Pentagon want, I remind my colleagues that in the beginning of the B-2 program, the Defense Department wanted 132 B-2's. When funding was obviously difficult, they reduced it to 75. And funding was even more difficult, they reduced it to 20. And as my colleague from California pointed out, when it became politically advantageous, the 20 went up to 21. So the Department of Defense has been all over the board on how many B-2's they wanted. The Congress is of the opinion as we voted on the armed services authorization bill last month, that there should be nine additional B-2's to make it a three squadron force. Where would the money go? The amendment would take this money from the B-2 line and put it into KC-135 reengining. In that account we are already $152 million over the budget. The breast cancer program that most all of us support, the administration has never asked for it in the defense appropriations bill, but we have for years have funded it, and this year this bill is $125 million over what the President's budget was. That was a big zero. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] talked about how we outspend everybody else in the world, and there is a lot of reason for that. One reason is we are an all-volunteer force. We do not have a draft. We do not require that people serve in the military of the United States. We believe that those who do volunteer and that those who do serve should have a decent quality of life, that they should not have to live in hovels, that they should not have to live on food stamps. So we include in this bill a pay raise. We include in this bill additional money to repair barracks. We include in this bill additional money for medical care for those who serve in the military and their families. In fact about 70 percent of the money appropriated in this bill goes for those types of items, not to buy airplanes or ships or guns or tanks but to take care of our troops. Then, Mr. Chairman, if I were Saddam Hussein or a would-be Saddam Hussein, a would-be dictator and I saw that the United States has something as effective and powerful as a B-2, I would be very careful before I agitated or did something to bring the wrath of the United States against me. It is difficult to prove a negative. But because of the effectiveness of the B-2 and the deterrent value that it brings to our force, how many wars, how many battles will we not have to fight? It is hard to tell. But if we just did not have to fight one battle because we had something like the B-2, how many American lives would we save? That is what we are talking about, accomplishing the mission and saving the lives of the Americans who do it. Mr. DeLay. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of this amendment. It is no surprise that some Members would oppose a defense program that actually works to defend this Nation. Some Members simply believe that our defense needs are secondary to social spending. I disagree. I believe that the highest value this Federal Government has is defending our people against external threats. Some Members believe that those threats to our Nation's survival are in permanent decline. This is wishful thinking. We live in an age when dictators are alive and well. They are busy stockpiling nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. We must prepare to defend ourselves against these very real threats, and the B-2 has proven time and again to be a potent and effective defensive weapon. The notion that the B-2 is needlessly extravagant is simply wrong. The Air Force has estimated that a B-2 with two crewmembers could conduct an attack normally involving 75 tactical aircraft and 147 crewmembers. The procurement and life-cycle costs of 75 tactical aircraft approaches $7.5 billion. The comparable cost for one B-2 is $1.1 billion. Clearly, the B-2 provides us with the best opportunity to protect U.S. interests at the lowest cost and with the best possible technology. I hope that my colleagues will make the right choice tonight. A vote against keeping the B-2 line open and operational is shortsighted and we simply cannot afford to make such ill-considered, shortsighted choices. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Granger].

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Including any amendments thereto.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I have to object to that, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman has used a lot of time today. He has extended his time numerous times. I am constrained to object.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that it is obvious to me that the sponsors of this amendment, as well meaning as they are, have not read our report because in this report we explain how we cut over 200 programs from this bill, which is, by the way, the 13th appropriations bill for national defense, 13th one in a row that is less than the year before in actual purchasing ability. We cut over 200 programs. They are described in this report, and we targeted the Pentagon bureaucracy and their overhead. The QDR recommended certain reductions for next year; we took them for this year, $325 million worth. Other headquarters reductions, we took $149 million; civilian personnel overbudgeting, we took $245 million; for consultants and advisory services, we took $210 million; for defense dual use and commercialization programs, we took $188 million. We stopped certain programs. JASSM; $140 million, we took out of the program. In appropriating budgeting and working capital funds, we took out $111 million; automated data processing programs, excess growth in the programs, we took out $110 million; excess defense supply inventory, we took out $100 million, the Joint Aerostat Program, we could not find anybody that supported it so we terminated it, $93 million; the improper use of RDT&E funding for using RDT&E money for procurement, we stopped that, $71 million we took out; growth in federally financed research centers, $55 million we took out; growth in civilian employee travel, $52 million we took out. The list goes on and on. We took out a lot of money that we did not think was being spent wisely. We have scrutinized this bill probably better than any other appropriations bill that has been on this floor. We have scrutinized every section of it, and we have come up with a bill that has been agreed to by the authorizers, both intelligence and the House Committee on National Security, a bipartisan coalition of the appropriation subcommittee, the Committee on Appropriations, all of the votes on the House. This is a good bill, and to try to cut it by $4 billion just takes away things that are important to those who serve in our military.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The proponent of the amendment is suggesting it is a small amount, it is only 0.7 percent, but what the gentleman assumes with this amendment is the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence did not pay attention to what was being done when this bill was being marked up. The truth of the matter is that under the chairmanship of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the leadership of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], the ranking minority member, the members of this committee, and the staff looked at every item in this bill and looked at it closely to see where we needed to add or to see where we could save a few dollars to try to come in with as low a number as possible. I think we did a pretty good job. My job as chairman of the appropriations Subcommittee on National Security, the chairman's responsibility, and all the Members of this Congress, our responsibility to our Nation, to the people that we represent, is to keep the Nation secure, and that requires a very effective intelligence community to establish worldwide information that we need. And who needs it? Not only do people at the Pentagon, not only the people at the CIA but the soldiers in the field need it, the people that we send to battle need intelligence. Would it not be a shame to send somebody into combat and not provide them the necessary intelligence? That is what we are trying to do, is to have an effective intelligence operation, to guarantee a commitment that I and many of my colleagues have made over the years that we are not going to be willing to send an American into a hostile situation unless we know we have done the best to provide him with the best training, with the best equipment, the best technology and the best intelligence, and knowledge of the situation. That is what we are doing here today. We are trying to guarantee that our soldiers and those responsible for our Nation's security have the intelligence, the knowledge that they need. We have done the very best we could to get as much for the money. I would say that the committee has done a good job, and I compliment the leadership of the committee. I would hope that the Members of the House would be willing to vote a strong no on this amendment as they did on the Sanders amendment earlier this evening.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 54, the flag desecration constitutional amendment. As the Nation prepares to celebrate Flag Day, it is most fitting that we pass this measure and pay tribute to our American flag, our sacred red, white, and blue symbol of liberty. Nearly 200 years ago a tattered and worn American flag flew over Fort McHenry amidst dense smoke and heavy artillery fire. Every American now knows the words of tribute penned by Francis Scott Key, describing how after a night of intense fighting, he looked upon Fort McHenry in the early light of day and saw Old Glory, with its broad stripes and its bright stars, still flying high. Today, above the pristine Capitol of our great Nation, the flag still flies high so that all of the world might look upon our Nation and know that we indeed are the land of the free and the home of the brave. Our American flag is a symbol of freedom and liberty that every American should look upon with patriotic fervor. It flies gloriously over our national buildings, monuments, and parks, quietly over the graves of the dedicated men and women who have bravely served in our Armed Forces, proudly in all our schools and courthouses, and reverently in our churches and places of worship. This is our American flag. Regardless of race, creed, or color, the Stars and Stripes symbolizes for every American all that is good and right in our Nation. It honors both the living and the dead who have so honorably served and sacrificed in the U.S. military, and it honors the families who work hard every day serving their communities, helping their neighbors, and pursuing the American dream. It is a symbol of strength and protection to our schoolchildren, a symbol of liberty to those who look upon the United States from distant shores, and a symbol of honor and justice to every freedom-loving American. Mr. Speaker, this is our American flag. May it always fly high over our great land, our America the beautiful.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to echo some of the thoughts that my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] has just spoken of. I would remind the Members, and as I have told Mr. Murtha, when I was 5 years old and lived in a little house on the banks of the Allegheny River in western Pennsylvania, I had an opportunity to watch that little house get knocked off of its foundation by the flooded Allegheny River, and at that point we had no idea where we might be going to live. So I know firsthand, although it has been a while ago, I know firsthand the feeling and frustration of people that lose their homes because of natural disasters, and in this case floods. Also, I would say that the needs of the Army and the Navy and the Air Force and the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard need to be met and need to be met quickly. In support of the work of the Committee on Appropriations, and especially the Subcommittee on National Security, we have done our job. We did it well. When we got the request for the supplemental for the Armed Services, we were asked to wait until the disaster supplemental was sent also from the White House, so we did wait for that. It arrived at the end of March. The subcommittee marked up the defense supplemental on April 16. We were through the full committee on markup on April 24. The Senate passed the supplemental on May 8. The supplemental went to the House floor, was defeated by an overwhelming vote on that side, unfortunately. So we had to bring the supplemental rule back to the House again on May 15. We finally passed it and went to conference on May 20. On the first day of the conference, the conferees on the national security issue, the defense supplemental, settled our differences with the other body, and we were prepared to move that legislation then. We recognized the need that the Armed Services had. We did not delay. We have been prepared to go on this issue ever since May 20. So I hope that we can settle this issue today. I hope that we can send it to the White House. I hope the President will recognize that what we are doing here is in good faith, sign this bill, get the disaster relief where it is needed, and get the money to the military before they have to stand down their training and other issues that might seriously affect readiness.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would respond that the subcommittee made every effort to offset all of the defense supplementals for the Bosnian deployment from funds from the Department of Defense. We did that successfully. We were extremely careful to look at programs where the funding would have expired because the programs had been delayed. I would say to the gentleman that he is absolutely correct. Missile defense systems to protect our troops is one of our highest priorities. THAAD remains one of the highest priorities in the missile defense program. We are committed to providing adequate funds to keep the program on track. Our recommendation to rescind a portion of 1996 funds was strictly one of timing. Due to the ongoing program review and resulting schedule changes, all of the fiscal year 1996 funds could not have been executed by September 30, the date when they would expire. However, there are still sufficient 1996 funds remaining, as well as fiscal year 1997 funds, to carry the program forward. The department assures us that there are adequate funds to resume testing later this year upon completion of the review.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, the committee only approved this rescission after it was determined there would be no impact on planned fiscal year 1997 testing efforts. The committee did not and would not approve any action which would delay program development. In the early stages of the THAAD program success was all over the place, but recent tests have been not quite as successful, so the review is necessary. But this rescission should have no impact on the ability to deploy a user operational evaluation system by 1999. We are committed to getting this system and other critical theater missile defense systems into the field to protect our troops at the earliest possible date.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I would like to urge our colleagues to do everything possible to expedite this bill. The money for the Department of Defense that we provide in this bill is offset from the Department of Defense budget. There is no new money here. It is basically a transfer within the department's funding. But if we cannot get this done expeditiously, the operation and maintenance accounts, the training accounts for all of the services, are going to be severely affected. I just urge our colleagues, however they intend to vote on the bill, help us expedite the consideration of this bill so we do not have to stand down any flight training or stand down any training on the part of any of the services, or affect any of the operations and maintenance, because that is what will happen if we do not get this funding resolution, this supplemental appropriations bills, through here quickly.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding high school student from Largo, FL. Lisa-Anne Furgal has been awarded the Prudential Spirit of Community Award for her outstanding volunteer service to her community. She will represent the State of Florida here in Washington, DC at a national event honoring those high school and middle school students who have shown a deep commitment to their communities and to helping others. Lisa, a student at Largo High School, founded an organization called YOUTH which stands for Youth Out To Help, and informs people in her community about volunteer opportunities. Twenty-five to forty hours of her busy week are dedicated to meeting with board members, planning a newsletter, and collecting donations. YOUTH also publishes a booklet of nonprofit organizations where other students can volunteer their time or direct their donations. In Lisa's own words, ``Volunteering enables you to make a positive impact on the world.'' The sacrifice Lisa has made to serving others should be an example to us all. Many times it seems our responsibilities make free time more scarce than we would like. But taking a minute away from our business, and looking for ways we can volunteer, can make a significant difference in another person's life at a time when they need help. I hope that young and old alike take notice of the needs that many have in our country. And if we can pull together, one community at a time, with the exceptional leadership of individuals like Lisa-Anne Furgal, we will see positive changes in the lives of the people who are in need.