C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I explained during general debate, in order to conform this bill to the budget resolution that was adopted yesterday in the House, it was necessary to cut another $500 million, actually $508 million, over a half billion, from this bill, and that is the purpose of the amendment that I just offered, and I will submit a statement that will explain in detail how we had to arrive at this point. But I wanted to point out for the Record so that it would be clear exactly what it is that we are doing so that no one has any questions. We have reduced the MLRS launcher line by $56.2 million. That leaves an increase over the budget of $10 million. We eliminate, basically eliminate the TAGS ship. We leave $4 million in that account but we take $50 million. The third Seawolf, we reduce by $100 million. That still leaves $599 million in the budget. The new attack submarine program line, we have reduced by $100 million; that still leaves $704 million in that account. The C-130, the airborne command and control version of that aircraft, we would eliminate one that we had added. That is $52 million. And then we have a classified item that we are not able to discuss on the floor but those Members cleared for the information are aware of it. That is another $100 million cut. That comes to $508 million. I would hope that we could expedite the consideration of this amendment. It is necessary to conform this bill to the budget request or to the budget resolution as passed. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I send to the desk an amendment made in order by the rule. Mr. Chairman, as I explained during general debate, in order to conform this bill to the conference agreement on the budget resolution, it is necessary to cut the funds in this bill by an additional $500 million. That is the purpose of the amendment I just offered--to bring this bill in line with the budget resolution. In the budget resolution process, the House originally recommended a total for Defense which was $1.6 billion higher than the Senate. The House position was higher. And when we passed the Defense authorization bill 4 weeks ago, that bill was marked to the higher House level. And when we marked up this bill, we also went to the original House- passed level. We brought this bill to the full Appropriations Committee last week. Based on tentative discussions in the budget conference, we were led to believe the House and Senate would split the difference in the defense number. That meant the House number would come down by $800 million. So in full committee, I offered an amendment which cut our subcommittee bill by $800 million. So the bill before the House right now is already $800 million under our original target. But when the final budget agreement was reached, it turns out we did not get a split, we went all the way to the lower Senate figure. That means we have to cut this bill, again. So, I find myself in the somewhat awkward position of offering this amendment. For those of you who know me, I think if you had approached me a few years ago, or even a few weeks ago, and said Bill, we want you to offer amendments to cut your committee's Defense appropriations bill by $1.3 billion, I probably would have told you not on your life. Our subcommittee wrote a good bill. Floyd Spence, and his committee, and Larry Combest and the Intelligence Committee, they wrote good bills. We are trying to take care of the troops and their families. We are trying to make sure our personnel have the best equipment, the best training, the best intelligence to do their jobs around the world. So when as chairman of this subcommittee, I get the pleasure of trying to find $1.3 billion in cuts to what we thought was a pretty good Defense appropriations bill, it is not a job I enjoy. But we all have to deal with the hand we have been dealt. So here we are, cutting half a billion dollars out of the Defense bill. Finding this money has not been easy. We have been working over a week to come up with a balanced package, one that does not do irreparable harm. And when I say we, I mean myself and our ranking minority member, Mr. Murtha. I worked with Mr. Murtha from the start on this. We went back and forth, and believe me, neither of us enjoyed it because we had to make some tough decisions. Everybody had to give something. We also ran this past our subcommittee, getting their input as well as the members of the committee. So this is not a perfect amendment, but it is one we tried to develop on a bipartisan basis, one that was fair and that did the least harm. This amendment cuts a total of $508.2 million. We propose cutting $50 million out of excess spare parts inventories. This a cut we found based on audit work done at the Pentagon that shows in certain instances we have overbudgeted for spare parts. That was the easy one. To find the other $458 million, we had to cut, or trim back, money we recommended in modernization programs, each one important to the services. The amendment cuts $56.2 million from Army missile procurement, which we recommend to come from the total in the bill for MLRS launchers. We originally proposed an add over the President's budget of $66.2 million--we would cut that back by $56 million. We take out $52 million from Air Force aircraft procurement, that being for one airborne command, control, and communications aircraft-- or A-B-Triple C. This was on the Air Force shortfall list, as a top unfunded item. We originally added funds for three A-B-Triple C's, but the amendment takes out money for one of the three. Navy shipbuilding--there would be a reduction of $250 million. This comes in three pieces. Fifty million dollars is from an oceanographic ship, the TAGS ship. Again, this was on the Navy's shortfall list so we had $54 million in the bill. We take out $50 million in the amendment, which leaves $4 million which could be used with money we provided last year for long- lead purchases needed to build a TAGS ship. One hundred million dollars comes from the new attack submarine line. Right now the bill has $800 million for the new attack submarine, providing long lead money for the first sub, which is being built in Groton, CT, and the second sub which will be done at Newport News, VA. The amendment cuts this back by $100 million. It does not specify which sub it will come out of. This leaves $700 million, still an increase of $404 million over the budget which we think is enough to keep this program underway. And the final shipbuilding piece comes from the SSN-23, the third Seawolf. Before this year, we had appropriated $1.6 billion for the third Seawolf. The budget for this year requested $699 million. The last increment for the Seawolf is budgeted for next year, at $100 million for a total cost of $2.4 billion. We think we can take $100 million out from the $699 million in the bill, without really disrupting the program. Most of the money in the request this year is for Government- furnished equipment, or GFE, which means components like pumps and valves, and electronics. These go into the submarine after it is basically built and so we think taking this money out will not really impact the construction schedule. That brings us to one last item, a $100 million reduction in Air Force research and development. This is for classified activities, and I'm constrained from describing what this is because of the sensitivity of the issues. Let me just say the bill had recommended additions over the budget to accelerate certain activities. This reduction of $100 million will not stop this effort, and in fact still allows these projects to move out. On all these items, we know we may need to make adjustments down the line and I expect if we have taken out too much we will have another chance to deal with them in conference. That's our proposal, a $508.2 million cut. If adopted, this would bring the bill down to a total of $245.3 billion. This level is significantly less than last year, if you adjust for inflation. We would be 2 percent less than fiscal year 1996, or about $4.7 billion less than 1996 when adjusted for inflation. In fact, if this amendment is adopted, we will be at a level which you could consider as being below the 1996 enacted level, if you back out the pay raise and the extra $475 million for medical care we have in the bill to restore the cuts for medical care proposed by the President. I mention all this because you will hear throughout the debate today that this bill is over last year's level--and you will be asked to vote on any number of cutting amendments to bring the bill down even further. I want to say again--if you vote for this amendment, then we will be nearly $5 billion less than last year, adjusting for inflation. The DOD will be asked to operate with $4.7 billion less in terms of buying power. This will be the twelfth straight year Defense budgets will have lost ground. And we will actually be below a hard freeze, if you give us credit for the pay raise and the medical funding in the bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule.

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

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to present to the House what I think is an excellent national defense appropriations bill. There will be those who disagree with that statement, but I have to say this, that this bill was created by Members of both parties in a bipartisan fashion and the bill that we bring to the floor is agreed to by the vast majority of the subcommittee and the full Committee on Appropriations. We did this because of the tremendous cooperation that the Members showed toward each other in dealing with the issues. And those issues were decided based on the merit, based on whether or not they contributed something to our national security, and based on whether or not there actually was a requirement for what we included in the bill. There was no question about who did it help politically or where did it create jobs or not create jobs. The decisions were based on what is good to provide for the security of this Nation, and our interests, wherever they might be. And not only the Members who are outstanding members of this committee on both sides, I wanted to take just a minute and call attention to those who serve us at the staff level, those staffers who work here hours and hours late at night after we have done our work and gone home. And I want to point out Kevin Roper, for whom this Congress is his first time as the chief clerk of this subcommittee and has done such an outstanding job. His brain is like a computer. He is able to call up information without any hesitation when he is called upon to do that. John Plashal, Dave Kilian, Alicia Jones, Juliet Pacquing, Greg Walters, Trish Keenan, Doug Gregory, Paul Juola, Tina Jonas, Steve Nixon, Stacy Trimble; Paige Schreiner, who by the way is on maternity leave, just having had a lovely new daughter; and Cynthia Hill, who was a detailee from Navy; and Mr. Greg Dahlberg, who works as a partner with Kevin Roper, who also is a tremendous asset to the work of this subcommittee; and Carmen Scialabba, who is in Mr. Murtha's office. These ladies and gentlemen have all made tremendous contributions to helping this subcommittee do its work with the thousands and thousands of items and thousands and thousands of decisions that we have make during our markup. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say this: This bill that we present, we started with the President's budget request. There are those who say that, ``Well, you are a Republican Congress. When the President's budget gets there, it is going to be dead on arrival.'' And we assured them all that is not the case. We worked in cooperation with the administration. We began with the President's budget. We believed then, and we still believe, that it was short in a number of areas; so we made some additions. But basically and budget requested by the President is provided for in this bill. But I will call to the attention of the Members some of the adds that we included, but let me tell Members about the numbers. We began with a 602(b) allocation of $246.6 billion and we marked to that amount, and we did the best we could to get the most for the money that we possibly could. At that, based on real growth, counting for inflation, is actually $4 billion under last year's bill. By the time we got to the full committee, we had to make another $800 million reduction. So again we stood up to the plate, and we made that $800 billion reduction based on what the leadership thought would be the budget split between the House number and the Senate number. Well, now we come to the floor, and that number is not low enough, based on the budget resolution we passed yesterday. So we will have to offer an amendment today that will cut an additional $500 million out of this bill. and that amendment has been prepared with the cooperation and work of all of the members of the subcommittee. By the time we finish with that amendment, this bill will be down to $245.3 billion. That is $4.7 billion under last year if we adjust for inflation, which is the realistic thing to do, and it is $1.6 billion under the authorized levels. We have worked closely with the authorizers, with the chairman of the Committee on National Security and with the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, to fashion this bill. We have worked in lock step. We cannot provide everything that they authorize because we do not have that much money available. But the bill we are going to vote on today is very close to the bill that Members have already voted in large numbers to support for the intelligence authorization bill and as well as the national security authorization bill. As we get into the amendments, we will then get into more debate about the bill. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following tabular material for the Record: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JN96.000 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JN96.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JN96.002

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I am not assuring her how we are accomplishing this, but I will assure her that we are not going to deny legitimate debate on this bill or the amendments.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the gentlewoman we have no intention of denying anyone the opportunity to speak to the extent that they must. So, the gentlewoman might be assured of that.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr YOUNG of Florida

Mr YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out this is an open rule, and we ought to be able to expedite the consideration of the rule and even adopt it by a voice vote, I would hope. We are already an hour past the time we expected to be starting this bill. I know that Members have plans for tomorrow that do not involve being here in the Chamber, so our plan is to finish this bill tonight. The sooner we can expedite it, the sooner Members can get about their other plans, and I know at the White House, the President is having a significant function there tonight that some Members who have been invited would like to get to. Hopefully, we can expedite the rule, move on to the bill and get into the substance of the bill without any delay.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Memorial Day has just passed, but we should always hold in our hearts the memory of those who came before us offering their service to our country. They made many a sacrifice, none small, some ultimate, for the greatness of our Nation. My constituent, Mr. Curt Perdelwitz, a retired U.S. Air Force Master Sergeant, has written a very poignant poem to remind us of our obligation to honor their memory. The poem, ``We Remember,'' which I will include following my remarks, was selected as the Editor's Choice by the National Library of Poetry and published in the ``Path Not Taken.'' I commend it to my colleagues and all Americans as a constant reminder of the great price we pay to defend freedom throughout the world. We Remember (By Curt W. Perdelwitz) The guns of the battle are now silent, The cries of the wounded no longer are heard The fields at Verdun and Bastogne are now peaceful, Antietam and the Hue are history remembered. Inchon and Desert Storm but memories of conflicts, Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal are part of our lore. But, for those whose blood turned battlefields red, And those who now rest in Valhalla, We, on this day, offer this prayer:-- Oh Father in heaven! Lord of all living things! Bestow on Your lowly human mortals The wisdom and strength to lay aside Our greed, and power, and desire for material things. Awake within us, the sights of those crosses en row, Remind us of the souls who rest beneath--those Who gave their lives for us who now remain. It is for us to keep alive their spirits and hopes For those freedoms that shall never die. Grant us the ability to keep the faith and our promises To those who gave so much to us who now survive.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 214, I was inadvertently detained and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the conference committee that presents this conference report today, and one who participated in a lot of the activities, but who observed, even more than that, the activities of the leadership of the full committee, I want to first compliment the gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman Bob Livingston, for the tremendous effort and the great amounts of time and the give and take that he had to work with, and the staff that worked with him during this whole process. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking Minority Member on the full committee. This is an honest compromise. It is a true compromise. Everybody is claiming victory. That is good. When everybody claims victory, it must be something pretty decent here. I want to speak specifically to a very significant part of this conference report, and that is the provision of funding for the deployment of the American forces serving with such distinction in Bosnia. In the beginning, we can all recall, there was a lot of difference of opinion as to whether or not we should send Americans to Bosnia, but that decision was made by the President and American troops went to Bosnia, and they have and they are continuing to conduct themselves in an extremely efficient and effective manner. In this bill is part of the funding to pay for that deployment, to pay for those troops being there. So for those of us who really believe that we ought to support our troops no matter where they are, no matter what their mission is, this is the time to do it. Voting for this conference report is a vote to provide for the support and the funding for the American troops who have been sent to Bosnia on this mission.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the problem of illegal immigration has reached historic proportions. Past attempts by Congress to reform immigration laws have provided nothing more than greater incentives and promised benefits for illegal aliens. The result is the present system which actually encourages immigrants to come to America illegally. Today, I am proud to support an historic change in our Nation's immigration policy. Today, we are going to pass a reform bill with real teeth in it. A bill that cracks down on illegal immigrants already here, and one that secures our borders against future immigrants who would seek to enter illegally. Past legislation this House has considered, which I strongly opposed, did nothing to alleviate the problems of illegal immigration. At long last, I look forward to supporting a bill which acknowledges these problems and takes action to address them. While past legislation sent the message you could come to the U.S. illegally and expect to receive welfare benefits, food stamps and free health care, this legislation finally puts an end to this outrage. As a Member from the State of Florida, I have seen first-hand the financial burden these ill-gotten attempts at reform have placed on States forced to bear the brunt of this failed immigration policy. Past Congresses refused to stop the excessive flow of illegal immigrants and to eliminate the enormous costs associated with this broken system. Today, we own-up to our responsibilities with a hard-nosed approach that substantially increases border control, provides the Immigration and Naturalization Service with the tools necessary to find and deport illegal aliens, and pays for the Federal Government's financial obligations to the States. Mr. Chairman, my State of Florida has long been overburdened by the flood of illegal immigration. Since the Mariel boatlift in 1980, we have been the destination of a disproportionate number of immigrants, making us the third-largest recipient of immigrants among our 50 States. Although immigration policy is the sole jurisdiction of the United States Government, history has proven that States like Florida are typically left with the cost and responsibility of providing expensive social services to illegal aliens. With the enactment of H.R. 2202, we have an opportunity to minimize the enormous expenses that we force upon our States by denying most public benefits to illegal aliens, removing public charges, and holding sponsors personally responsible for the financial well- being of an immigrant they bring into our country. Most importantly, this bill requires the Federal Government to reimburse States and localities for any expenses incurred from providing federally mandated services to illegal immigrants. Based upon various formulas, it is estimated that the State of Florida has spent an average of $651 million per year from 1989-1993, or a total of $3.25 billion for services provided to illegal immigrants. If the costs to local governments are included, the total burden rises to $15 billion for that same 5-year period. Unlike past immigration reform bills, H.R. 2202 will actually discourage the illegal entry of immigrants by increasing our border control agents by 5,000 personnel, improving physical barriers along our borders, including a triple-layer fence, authorizing advanced border equipment to be used by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and instituting an effective removal process to discharge illegal immigrants with no documentation. This bill provides the Department of Justice with 25 new U.S. Attorneys General and authorizes 350 new INS inspectors to investigate and prosecute aliens and alien smugglers. This bill also strongly supports the American worker by cracking down on the use of fraudulent documents that illegal immigrants use to get American jobs and by enforcing strict penalties for employers who knowingly violate these laws. The Department of Labor is authorized 150 new investigators to enforce the bill's labor provisions barring the employment of illegal aliens. Mr. Chairman, the American people demand that Congress take action to secure our borders against illegal immigrants. With the explosion in the amount of drugs and criminals coming across our borders, and with the flood of illegal immigrants, many of whom settle in Florida, it is eminently important that we do all we can to protect our national borders. While past Congresses refused to address this national crisis, today we deliver, with a much needed and long overdue first step in this renewed effort. Today we will approve legislation with unprecedented prevention and enforcement mechanisms. The message to illegal aliens is no longer one of indifference. The new message is simple--try to enter the United States illegally and we will stop you, should you get in, we will find and deport you, and should you remain in hiding, don't expect much in the way of support.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would respond simply by saying we think we might be able to do better than the $900 million. That is certainly what we intend to do. As far as this amendment getting lost in conference, I do not think that is a serious problem at all. If we agree to it here today, then there is no conference on this item and there is no further opportunity for us to try to get more for the dollar. Mr. Speaker, I must restate my objection.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would point out to the gentleman who offered the request that the Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security strongly supports the C-17 aircraft and also strongly supports multiyear contracting as a way to save, get more for the dollar. In this case the President's request is somewhat unique. Normally multiyear contracting is for a 5-year period. In this case it is for 7, and normally we are guaranteed at least a 10-percent savings because of going to multiyear. In this case we are only guaranteed 5 percent. We will be addressing this issue, and it will be addressed in conference since the other body will include it in their bill. Mr. Speaker, I will object.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The total of $310 million for military personnel includes additional incremental costs for pay and allowances for active duty and reserve personnel deployed in support of the Bosnia operation. Such costs include basic allowance for subsistence, imminent danger pay, family separation allowance and foreign duty pay. The total of $446.1 million for operation and maintenance is for additional incremental costs for unit operations, transportation, logistics, consumable supplies, fuel and spare parts in support of IFOR and operation deny flight. The committee notes with concern emerging trends associated with the expenses of logistical and other support for U.S. ground forces in the IFOR area of operations, particularly in the area of contractor- provided logistics support [LOGCAP]. These costs have risen considerably beyond initial estimates. While recognizing the need to provide essential resources to U.S. troops in support of IFOR, the committee expects the Department of Defense to live up to its recent commitment to controlling any further cost growth.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me take just a few minutes to discuss chapter 4 of title II, which is the defense supplemental to pay for the Bosnia deployment. As all of us are aware, many Members in this House disagreed with the President and the administration when they decided to send United States troops to Bosnia. We voted several times on the House floor giving that indication to the White House, that we did not want American troops to go to Bosnia. Nevertheless, the President made the decision, the troops were deployed, and they are serving in Bosnia today, and they are serving with great distinction, as they always do. But now that the deployment has been made, we have to pay for it, and we are here with a strong commitment to make the necessary payments to provide our troops with whatever it is they need to do their mission and to give themselves some protection at the same time. In the beginning it was estimated the Bosnia deployment would cost the taxpayers about $1\1/2\ billion. Now we are talking about $2\1/2\ billion, and in the opinion of this Member it is even going to be higher than that, but nevertheless we are going to deal with those costs. We have already dealt with phase one of a three-phase program to pay for the Bosnia deployment. That was a major reprogramming, which our committee approved last month. Today we deal with phase two, this supplemental we have recommended more than the President asked for because we determine that he actually needed more at this point in order to pay for what is going on in Bosnia. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] said that we were meeting the President halfway on this bill. In the area of national defense and the Bosnia deployment, we are meeting him 125 percent of the way because we increased his request for $620 million to $820 million. I will submit a detailed statement as to exactly what those funds are to be used for. Now, Mr. Chairman, we are very committed to providing our troops, wherever they might be, whatever they need to accomplish their mission and to protect themselves while they are doing it. But we want to deliver another message as strongly as we can. The Department of Defense funding, money appropriated to provide for our national defense, is not going become a bank for other agencies' operations, although we may support those operations. I say that because part of the President's request was to have the Department of Defense provide an additional $200 million in offsets for what I would describe briefly as a foreign aid program for Bosnia after U.S. troops leave. We resisted that strongly, and we were successful, and that $200 million will not come from Department of Defense funds. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee will ask in the House for permission to revise and extend and include tabular material, and I would like to insert a detailed explanation of how these funds will be used and tabular material following my comments at this point in the Record. The chairman will ask for that permission when we go back into the House. With that, let me say God bless our troops in Bosnia. We will do everything we can to provide them what they need. Mr. Chairman, I rise to provide a brief explanation of those items under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on National Security in H.R. 3019. Title II of this bill contains funding for a number of programs related to international peacekeeping activities. Chapter IV of this title provides a total of $782.5 million in emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense to finance unfunded costs resulting from the NATO-led Bosnia Peace Implementation Force [IFOR] and Operation Deny Flight. In conjunction with $37.5 million provided to the Department for Bosnia-related military construction costs in chapter III, H.R. 3019 contains a total of $820 million for Department of Defense costs stemming from the Bosnia operation. These supplemental appropriations are totally offset by $820 rescissions of previously appropriated Department of Defense funds identified by the Secretary of Defense as excess to requirements. Additional rescissions of $70 million have been included to offset funding in chapter II associated with the transfer of F-16 aircraft to the Government of Jordan. The President has requested supplemental funding to replenish the Military Services' military personnel and operation and maintenance accounts for costs incurred due to the Bosnia deployment. Without these funds the Services will be forced to absorb the costs, forcing steps which will degrade military readiness and quality of life programs such as delaying promotions and personnel moves and canceling exercises and training operations. This supplemental represents the second phase of the Department of Defense's plan to finance the cost of the Bosnia deployment. On January 21, 1996, the Department submitted a reprogramming request to the congressional defense committees for other Bosnia-related costs in the amount of $991 million, offset by an equal amount available due to revised inflation assumptions regarding programs in the fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The Committee on Appropriations has been advised the Department will submit a second reprogramming action in the near future to cover any remaining incremental fiscal year 1996 costs from the Bosnia deployment and other unfunded contingency operations. The President requested a total of $620 million in supplemental appropriations for Bosnia-related defense costs. The additional $200 million provided in this bill is for military personnel and logistics support costs identified subsequent to the President's submission. The following table provides details of the appropriations in Chapters III and IV:

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as I rise in support of this conference report, I want to say a special word about the gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman Floyd Spence. Chairman Spence and the gentleman from California, Mr. Dellums, and I came to the Congress together in the 92d Congress. We were all assigned to the Committee on Armed Services and we have all worked closely together since that time in behalf of our Nation's security and those who provide the Nation's security. In the last year since the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and I assumed our respective chairmanships, we have worked together on a daily basis, and I think in an unusual partnership between authorizers and appropriators that does not always happen here. I want to compliment the gentleman. I know the rigors and the trials that the gentleman has gone through in order to get us where we are today with a good conference report on a good defense authorization bill, and one that I understand even the President is prepared to agree to. The gentleman deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the contribution that he has made to our national defense effort over all these years and in bringing this particular bill to us today. I compliment the gentleman and appreciate our friendship and professional relationship. One of the items in this bill is something that most of us have been concerned about, and that is what we refer to as COLA equity for retired military personnel. We thought we had this problem of equity corrected several times during the year, but each time the arrangement fell apart. But Chairman Spence stuck to his guns in this bill, and I would like to announce this to the 323 of our colleagues who have cosponsored H.R. 2664, to accomplish COLA equity for our retired military. This bill does what 2664 intended to do, and I thank the chairman and ranking member for including it and insisting that it be included in this bill. Hopefully the President will understand the importance of that and will sign this bill and let it become law. Again, I appreciate the working relationship that our two committees have had, our respective members and staffs have had, a good working relationship to provide for the security of our Nation, the well-being of those who serve us in the uniform of the United States, and to get the best deal we can for the taxpayer who has to pay for it all. Mr. Speaker, there were very many things I found disturbing about President Clinton's first budget enacted in 1993. There were the new taxes, the increase in the Social Security earnings limitation, real cuts in Medicare spending, and the failure of the President to seriously address the deficit. However, nothing in that budget seemed more outrageous than to treat our Nation's retired military personnel as second-class citizens when it came to their retirement pay. As one of this Congress' strongest advocates for those who serve and have served in our Nation's Armed Forces, I found it deplorable that the President and the Congress would ask those who have sacrificed so much for this country to bear an unfair burden in efforts to reduce the deficit. In fact, I would argue at length with anyone who suggests we should delay cost-of-living adjustments [COLA's] to military retirees as a means to help balance the budget. But I will fight to the bitter end against those who would do so while treating other Federal retirees differently. Unfortunately, this was exactly what the President's budget did as civilian retirees and military retirees were set on different COLA schedules all in the name of deficit reduction. Many of us in this Congress and throughout our Nation have been engaged in the battle for equity between civilian and military retirees since then. Fighting along side national and local veterans and military organizations we began in opposition to the President's 1993 budget. Then, 2 years ago we fought and succeeded in eliminating the disparity in 1995 by providing funds for an April COLA. Last year, while the President refused to include language in his budget request repealing the COLA changes, the Congress took its own action by restoring equality in the 1996 Defense authorization bill. Although the President vetoed this bill, the legislation we consider today will again ensure that military retirees receive their COLA's in April of this year, and in January in 1997 and 1998, the same dates that civilians will receive their COLA's. Since this Congress began more than a year ago, the new leadership of this House has made it a priority to end the inequity visited upon our Nation's military retirees by that 1993 budget. When our efforts to solve this problem in November became bogged down in the politics of a balanced budget and the 1996 Defense Authorization bill had stalled, I introduced a free-standing bill, H.R. 2664, to restore parity between military and civilian COLA's. In 4 legislative days more than 250 Members of Congress cosponsored this bill. Today there are over 320 cosponsors. Mr. Speaker, as press reports indicate that the Secretary of Defense will recommend the President sign this new defense measure, supporting the conference report will be a major step toward restoring fairness to the way we treat both military and civilian retirees. I urge every one of my colleagues in the House to support the legislation before us today and help bring a successful conclusion to our efforts to end this inequity once and for all. Let's treat our military retirees with the fairness, dignity, and respect they so rightly deserve.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the very unexpected and very flattering comments that he made. He is correct, he and I started along with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] a number of years ago working on national defense issues in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I rise to mention briefly a situation that exists and to compliment the Committee on National Security for something they did about it. The cost of living adjustments for retired military come at a different time in the year than the cost of living adjustments for retired civilian Federal employees. We would like to have equity and have both COLA's come at the same time. We thought we did that in the reconciliation bill, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, but for some reason it was dropped out. At that time I introduced along with 320 of our colleagues, introduced H.R. 2664 that would correct this inequity. When the Committee on National Security went to conference with the conferees from the other body, they dealt with this issue and they made this issue work. I would just compliment them for the good job they did in bringing about equity in the COLA issues and urge them to stand fast as they go back to conference to keep this issue before the conference and keep it in the bill that finally goes back to the President, so that we do not have to gear up H.R. 2664 again. But with 320 cosponsors, I think we can do that easily, Mr. Speaker. Again I compliment the members of the Committee on National Security for the good job they did in conference in trying to represent the viewpoint of the House for a strong national defense.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I detect a breath of bipartisanship as we approach a vote on this important piece of legislation, not a heavy breeze, or not a big wind, but at least a breath of bipartisanship, and that is what it is going to take to get our job done. We need to pass this legislation, which I strongly support, and allow the people, who are not responsible at all for the dilemma that we find ourselves in, to get back to work and to get paid. There have been a lot of delays. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], our friend, has presented charts so many times indicating the delays and the bills that did not get to the President. The fact is all but three of the appropriations bills got to the President, and he vetoed four of them. But that is not the issue today. The idea is not who do we blame, but how do we get most of the job resolved, and that is what we are going to do by passage of this legislation today. In addition I wanted to say to my dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], who raised a very good point about the use of Federal funds for travel, that I plan to pursue this issue. During the early consideration of the defense appropriations bill I announced to the House that we intended to find out how much money was being spent for the use of military aircraft for nonmilitary travel by all branches of Government. We would have already had those hearings, except for the delays that were caused by the many issues preoccupying the President and Congress. But all of that is in the past now, Mr. Bonior. We are going to have those hearings that the gentleman is interested in. But I would like to close on this thought. The bipartisanship that we feel today would serve this Nation and this Congress well if we could remember that here in this hallowed Chamber is where we do the people's business, and if we would take our political activities and our campaigning for the next election back to the precincts and our districts where they belong, then the people's business would be better served.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I only rise to respond briefly to the comments of the gentlewoman from Colorado, who I know always wants to be exactly correct in her comments. She made the comment that the President was really a strong supporter of national defense because he signed the defense appropriations bill. In fact, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, the President himself said that he signed the defense appropriations bill. But a message from the White House on November 30 indicates that the President did not sign the defense appropriations bill, that it became law without his signature, and I think that is one indication of just how strong the President does support national defense.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one of the earlier proponents of the President's policy used the word ``hypocrisy'' when referring to some of the statements on the Republican side of the House. The word ``hypocrisy'' called to attention something of interest to me; that is, how do we really support the American troops? The real vote in supporting the American troops, the soldiers of our Nation, wherever they might be, came when we voted on the appropriations bill to pay for their training, to pay for their technology, to pay their salaries, their health care, their educational benefits, their quality of life. That is where we voted to support the American troops. Hypocrisy, one after the other on this side who come here now to support the President's policy, most of them are the very Members who voted against funding training, technology, quality of life for our troops, and refused to support the troops, but they want to send them to Bosnia to get involved in a war. Another of the speakers mentioned history. Let me say something about history. I read a statement to the President in the Cabinet Room a short time ago at a meeting. Subsequently that same day my distinguished minority leader read the same statement on the floor. Let me read it again just for a few seconds. No language can describe adequately the condition of that large portion of the Balkan peninsula, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and other provinces, political intrigues, constant rivalries, a total absence of all public spirit, hatred of all races, animosities of rival religions and an absence of any controlling power, nothing short of an army of 50,000 of the best troops would produce anything like order in these parts. History, my colleagues. That was said by British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli in the House of Lords in August 1878, and history proved his wisdom. Pray God that history does not prove this a disaster with Americans in Bosnia. We support our troops wherever they might be.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this morning I introduced H.R. 2664 to honor our commitment to our Nation's military retirees by restoring equity between their pensions and those of Federal civil service retirees. [[Page E 2224]] One of the many reasons that I strongly opposed President Clinton's 1993 budget was that it violated our contract with military and civil service retirees by delaying the payment of their annual cost of living adjustments. Further, this legislation treated both groups differently by providing for a 3 month delay in the payment of benefits for civil service retirees but a 9 month delay in the payment of benefits for military retirees. There is no doubt in my mind that those men and women who risked their lives in the defense of our great Nation are willing to do their part to help get our fiscal house in order. What they expect and deserve, though, is fairness. This legislation restores fairness and equity so that military retirees are treated the same as other Federal retirees. Last year, the Appropriations Subcommittee on National Defense was successful in providing the funds necessary to eliminate the disparity between the effective dates for military and civilian retiree COLA's for 1995. While we were successful in eliminating the COLA disparity for this year, President Clinton's 1996 budget request still left a disparity in the adjustment dates for the next 3 years. To resolve this issue and restore pension equity, the House included an important provision in the Balanced Budget Act we approved on October 26th which eliminates this disparity by placing military retiree COLAs on the same schedule as those for Federal retirees. We recognize in the House that asking military personnel, their families and retirees to accept a substantial reduction in retirement benefits is an affront to those who serve, and those who have served. This is an issue of fairness to the more than 1.5 million military retirees across our Nation. Unfortunately, the Senate insisted on dropping this provision from the conference report on the Balanced Budget Act which we considered in the House yesterday. Because I believe this issue is so important and should be dealt with immediately, I have introduced H.R. 2664 with 130 co-sponsors to restore COLA equity for military and civil service retirees. While some may propose changing our Nation's military retirement benefits to achieve further budget savings, as the Chairman of the National Security Appropriations Subcommittee my priority is to ensure that promises made to our Nation's military personnel are kept. I have steadfastly opposed any changes which break this pact and treat veterans and military retirees unfairly and would urge the House leadership to expedite the consideration of H.R. 2664.