C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the ranking minority member on the subcommittee and a former chairman.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington, who happens to be a distinguished member of our subcommittee.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would start by saying here we go again. The House overwhelmingly defeated an attempt to reduce the House bill when it was on the floor in its initial stages. This is a rehashing of the same approach. The conference report did reduce the House bill. We expect that the conference report numbers would be about the same, but let me tell you where they are. If we were to accept the Obey motion to instruct and if it were to prevail, this bill for fiscal year 1996 would be $2.6 billion less than the defense bill that was signed into law last year, which would mean the 12th year in a row that our investment in our national security has been reduced. It would result in a defense appropriations bill which would be $5.2 billion less than the House-passed defense authorization bill. So we are talking about a very fiscally conservative defense bill. What we are trying to do, we are trying to change the direction. Our defense establishment has already been reduced by 1.2 million personnel. At the same time, the President, the Commander in Chief, is sending U.S. troops around the world. If anybody is paying any attention at all, they know that the President intends to send 20,000 to 25,000 more American troops to Bosnia. To do what? To keep the peace? They do not call this peacekeeping forces anymore. Now they call it the implementation force. They are supposedly going with full combat gear and heavy equipment. My attitude is if the U.S. troops are going to be deployed to a hostile situation, that is the way they ought to go. But if they are going like that, that means there is no peace to keep. It means they are there to implement the peace. According to the news media this morning, the President has no intention of coming to the Congress to get any approval on the part of the Congress for this deployment of U.S. troops. I say that is wrong, Mr. President. The Congress has not only a right, but an obligation to be involved in these kind of decisions. Now, what type of programs would we have to eliminate if the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] were successful? What are the low priority, unrequested additions? First, let me speak to the issue of what is unrequested. Everyone who knows what is going on in this business, in the Congress and outside the Congress, at the Pentagon, at the White House, understands that the President sets a budget number. Regardless of what the Department of Defense, the Army and the Navy and the Air Force and the Marine Corps, what they think they need to accomplish their missions, they have to work within that political number set by the President. We tried to do our work a little differently. We had in the war fighters, not the political Pentagon but the people who have to perform the missions, who have to go to places like Bosnia or who went to Somalia or Desert Storm, to find out what their needs are. We came up with quite a list. I know that the gentleman who preceded me does not like it when I bring out this scroll, and I will not roll it out again, but this scroll contains hundreds of items that the Army and the Navy and the Air Force and the Marine Corps have identified as critical issues for them, but they could not get them in the budget because the number was not there. We are trying to turn that corner. We are trying to change the direction of 11 years of reduction, year after year, in our national defense activities, and that is what is on this scroll. We have tried to provide some of those. They are on the list. Let me speak to what some of those are. What are the unrequested adds? I hope the Members will pay attention to this, because almost every Member in this Chamber has written to me or spoken to me about this issue: $100 million that we added to this bill for breast cancer treatment and research for those women who serve in the military and the spouses of the men who serve in the military who may at one time or another have to deal with the issue of breast cancer. We were asked to provide $300 million for the military, the military activities, of the U.S. Coast Guard. While they do not come under our jurisdiction for their total funding, they are a military organization, and they are essential to our Nation's security. So we added $300 million for the Coast Guard. We added $322 million for barracks renovation, because some of the conditions of some of the barracks that our soldiers have to live in are pathetic. We are trying to correct that. We provided additional money for the Guard and Reserve equipment, because the Guard and Reserve, as we have reduced the end strength of our Armed Forces, the Guard and Reserve become extremely more important. Secretary Perry told us just a few days ago that when the troops go to Bosnia there will be Guard and Reserve units that will go with those troops that go to Bosnia. So they need to be properly equipped. And we tried to bring them up to date by modernizing their equipment. And, yes, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] does not like this one at all, but we did provide extra money for ballistic missile defense. I remember going to Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Jack Murtha, who was then chairman of this subcommittee, and shortly after we returned from that war zone we learned that a Scud missile had killed [[Page H 10250]] a large number of Pennsylvania National Guardsmen who were asleep in their barracks because our missile defense was not as good as it ought to be. It is still not, and we are trying to improve that. Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure when our troops are deployed and they go to sleep in their barracks behind the war zone that they ought to be provided some protection against a Scud type missile or an incoming ballistic missile. We provided some extra money for trucks. I visited some army bases just recently and I saw trucks that were in service in the Army when President Truman was President of the United States. It costs more to keep them up than it does to replace them, so we are trying to replace some of those World War II vintage trucks. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many of us remember General Schwarzkopf's comments when he came back from Desert Storm as a conquering hero, but he made the point to our subcommittee and to anybody that would listen that without the trucks that he had, that incidentally the Pentagon had never asked for but Congress provided, without those trucks he could never have prosecuted that war to the extent that he did. Mr. Speaker, we had a $400 million shortfall in ammunition. Ammunition. We provided extra money for ammunition. Something else we did that was an initiative of our subcommittee. There is an ongoing operation in Iraq to deny access to the skies of the Iraqi fighter pilots. That is ongoing. We added $650 million to pay for that operation. The way it has always been done in the past, Mr. Speaker, the President just goes ahead, he deploys the troops, and at the end of the year we have to come up with a supplemental to pay for that. We knew how much this operation was going to cost and so we provided the $650 million over and above the President's request to pay for that operation. And if we did not do that, what happens? They have to borrow it from their training accounts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to now move on to the subject of Bosnia because that is exactly what is happening today. The operation in Bosnia, before any additional deployment, is going to cost over $300 million this fiscal year. That money is being borrowed from their training accounts; and, as the Bosnian situation develops and grows more serious and more expensive, the moneys are going to be borrowed from training, from readiness, from operations and maintenance. We took a first step toward correcting some of that problem here with this money for the unbudgeted contingencies.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2126) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a further conference with the Senate thereon.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my good friend, Mr. Obey, and I have had many differences on the floor, but we have remained friends throughout those differences. I was a little offended when I thought the gentleman was trying to compare soldiers in the field to bureaucrats with their hands out. Soldiers in the field are in harm's way. They need the best training they can get. They need the best equipment they can get. They need the best technology they can get to accomplish the mission, No. 1, and to give themselves a little protection, No. 2. I see nothing wrong with that at all; to the contrary, I support that strongly. I would reaffirm a commitment I have made many, many times. I would never vote to send an American into a combat situation unless I knew that I had done everything that I possibly could to provide the best training and the best technology and the best equipment possible to accomplish the mission and, yes, give them a little protection at the same time. So I cannot compare those folks to bureaucrats with their hands out, in the words of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. There are some bureaucratic requests that were made. We are talking about what was requested by the administration and what was not. Let me tell Members some of the things that were requested by the administration that we did not do. We did not do, for example, the funding for the Russian conversion projects to convert their defense industry to supposedly nondefense industry. But let the record show that they were actually using our money to convert their defense industry to a different type of Russian defense industry. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] talked about the B-2. The Pentagon did not want it. We know the B-2 is an expensive program. It was not in the President's budget. The Seawolf is another expensive program, but it was in the President's budget. They are both fairly important. I remember the battle some years ago about the F-117. The arguments were, well, the Air Force did not request the F-117. The Pentagon did not ask for it. Why should we complete the program? But the Congress decided to complete the program. Congress prevailed. Who knows better than Saddam Hussein how effective the F-117 is because those airplanes flew over Baghdad at night, caused severe damage to Saddam's ability to conduct his war. They were never seen by the enemy because it was a good weapon. The Pentagon did not ask for the funds to complete that program but we did it anyway. Congress decided that it was a good program. I have looked at the list that the Senator, that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has talked about. I saw the list. I added the items up. If we took everything out of this bill that is on the list presented by the Senator, it would only come to about two-thirds of what Mr. Obey wants to reduce. What would some of those things be if we took out the list that the Senator sent over? Well, I mentioned the breast cancer program of $100 million. He thinks that is pork. Ask a woman that has had breast cancer or someone in their family that ever had breast cancer or who has a suspicion of breast cancer, ask them if they think the $100 million for breast cancer is pork. I think we would find the answer is definitely not. What about all the soldiers and the sailors and the airmen, the male members of the military? There is money in here for prostate cancer research. That is on the Senator's list. He would take that out. What about head injury research? That is on the Senator's list. He would take that out. What about AIDS research, unfortunately a growing problem in the military? We need to do something about that. The Senator's list would take that out. What about the Coast Guard, whether we are dealing with drug interdiction, whether we are dealing with search and rescue, whether we are dealing with Cubans and Haitians leaving their homelands to come to the United States? That is all in the interest of the United States. That money is on the Senator's list to take out. I say to my colleagues that the Senator's list is really mushy. The Senator's list may have a few things in here that would not have to be there, but, for the most part, the list is not a very accurate list as to what is pork and what is not pork. Our defense program has been reduced for 11 straight years. Defense manpower is down by over 1.2 million personnel. At the same time, the President is sending U.S. troops anywhere he desires without the approval of the Congress. The Obey amendment would like to deal with procurement funding. Procurement funding, that is the technology and the equipment that I talked about to let the soldiers accomplish their mission and protect themselves at the same time. Procurement funding is 70 percent less in this bill than the procurement level of 10 years ago. This is a pretty good defense bill. I say to the Members on my side of the aisle, it meets the obligation that we made in our Contract With America to change the direction of our national defense, to move away from a hollow force, to be prepared in the event the President decides to send Americans into harm's way. That is what this bill does. This is a pretty good bill. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Members defeat the Obey motion to instruct and allow us to get to conference and deal with the issues that we have to deal with. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments the gentleman has made and I know of the gentleman's strong interest. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I could not agree with him more with the issue that he raises dealing with the President sending United States troops to Bosnia. As a matter of fact, in the bill that I presented as the chairman's mark to the subcommittee, I had 5 pages of language dealing with the issue of Bosnia and the President's obligation to deal with the Congress on the issue. On the House floor, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] worked together to make that language even stronger. We attempted to keep that language in the conference. It was very difficult. Mr. Speaker, in the last week the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and I have both met with Secretary Perry and Ambassador Holbrooke. We discussed this issue and I asked the Secretary if the President still intended to come to the Congress to get approval before sending troops to Bosnia. His response was, ``Yes.'' And I said, ``Well, in what form would that consultation or that approval take?'' And Mr. Perry's response was, ``I don't know. That's the President's call.'' But I agree with the gentleman that American troops should not be sent into hostile situations without the consent of the Congress. If the President is willing to come to Congress and get that approval, that is one thing. But if he is not, then Congress has to do what it can with the purse strings. Mr. Speaker, I would assure the gentleman that we intend to make sure that that happens.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank the members of the committee for their concern about this. amendment offered by mr. cramer

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. One further question, if the gentleman would. The manager's amendment, which was adopted, includes language which allows members of the NOAA Corps to transfer to the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard or NOAA Civil Service if they are needed. Is this accurate?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Walker, H.R. 2405 terminates the NOAA Corps. Does the termination of the corps prevent NOAA from conducting important hurricane surveillance activities?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. And, if the gentleman would answer, would these aircraft continue to be based where they are presently? [[Page H 9931]]

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank, first of all, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] for allowing me to do this ahead of his amendment, and I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], and I would like to ask him about the NOAA aircraft, the 14 aircraft that NOAA flies as weather surveillance and hurricane surveillance, and I would ask the gentleman if these aircraft have been eliminated by H.R. 2405.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this month the city of St. Petersburg and the county of Pinellas will be honoring the Boley Centers for Behavioral Health Care, Inc., on its 25th anniversary, and I, too, want to commend this organization and its founders led by Mary R. Koenig on this occasion. The mission of the Boley Centers is to provide our community with comprehensive services for those with mental illnesses. Through its rehabilitation programs and a network of community residences and apartments, Boley Centers has helped thousands of disabled residents of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. The vast majority of Boley Centers' clients have been integrated into the community without the need for any additional hospitalization, and this has meant a considerable savings to the State and the county and speaks highly of the staff and services provided by Boley Centers. As one who has worked to help secure Federal funding for several of Boley Centers' resident complexes, I believe its clients are fortunate to have this outstanding program available to them in our community, and on this its silver anniversary, I salute Boley Centers, its Boley Angels, and the scores of others who have helped make Boley Centers one of the finest programs of its kind in our country.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson]. (Mr. HOBSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I will say, I disagree with the gentleman who just spoke. This does live up to the budgetary agreements that this House agreed to earlier this year. As a matter of fact, we are below those numbers. On the issue of the motion to recommit that the gentleman mentioned, we supported the Sanders language in the conference not only the language but the intent. In the conference, I thought it was only fair to tell the members of the conference committee of the memorandum from the Pentagon. At the time I made the point, I did not believe that it was a legal opinion, that it was merely an opinion from someone in the Pentagon. But we support the Sanders language. We are prepared to establish by colloquy the intent of the Sanders language. But I do not think that is a good reason to recommit this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], a very distinguished member of the subcommittee and of the conference committee.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], a member of the subcommittee and a member of the conference committee.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Rule 232, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2126), making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], a strong pro-lifer and a strong defense supporter.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members responded to their names: [Roll No. 698] Abercrombie Allard Andrews Archer Armey Bachus Baesler Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Baldacci Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (NE) Barrett (WI) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Becerra Beilenson Bentsen Bereuter Bevill Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop Bliley Blute Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Borski Boucher Brewster Browder Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Brownback Bryant (TN) Bryant (TX) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Calvert Camp Canady Cardin Castle Chabot Chambliss Chapman Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler Clay Clayton Clement Clinger Clyburn Coble Coburn Coleman Collins (GA) Collins (MI) Combest Condit Conyers Cooley Costello Cox Coyne Cramer Crane Crapo Cremeans Cubin Cunningham Danner Davis de la Garza Deal DeFazio DeLauro Diaz-Balart Dickey Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Dooley Doolittle Dornan Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Durbin Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Engel English Ensign Eshoo Evans Everett Ewing Farr Fattah Fawell Fazio Fields (TX) Filner Flake Flanagan Foglietta Foley Forbes Ford Fowler Fox Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frisa Funderburk Furse Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gekas Gephardt Geren Gilchrest Gillmor Gonzalez Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Green Greenwood Gunderson Gutierrez Gutknecht Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hancock Hansen Harman Hastert Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Hefner Heineman Herger Hilleary Hilliard Hinchey Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Holden Horn Hostettler Houghton Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Jackson-Lee Jefferson Johnson (CT) Johnson (SD) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Johnston Jones Kanjorski Kaptur Kasich Kelly Kennedy (MA) Kennedy (RI) Kennelly Kildee Kim King Kingston Kleczka Klink Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaFalce LaHood Lantos Largent Latham LaTourette Laughlin Lazio Leach Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Lincoln Linder Lipinski Livingston LoBiondo Lofgren Longley Lowey Lucas Luther Maloney Manton Manzullo Markey Martinez Martini Mascara Matsui McCarthy McCollum McCrery McDade McDermott McHale McInnis McIntosh McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek Menendez Metcalf Meyers Mfume Mica Miller (CA) Miller (FL) Mineta Minge Mink Molinari Mollohan Montgomery Moorhead Moran Morella Murtha Myers Myrick Nadler Neal Nethercutt Neumann Ney Norwood Nussle Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Orton Oxley Packard Pallone Parker Pastor Paxon Payne (NJ) Payne (VA) Pelosi Peterson (FL) Peterson (MN) Petri Pickett Pombo Pomeroy Portman Poshard Pryce Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Rangel Reed Regula Richardson Riggs Rivers Roberts Roemer Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rose Roth Roukema Roybal-Allard Royce Rush Sabo Salmon Sanders Sanford Sawyer Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Schiff Schroeder Schumer Scott Seastrand Sensenbrenner Serrano Shadegg Shaw Shays Shuster Sisisky Skaggs Skeen Skelton Slaughter Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solomon Souder Spence Spratt Stearns Stenholm Stockman Stokes Studds Stump Stupak Talent Tanner Tate Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Thornberry Thornton Thurman Tiahrt Torkildsen Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Upton Velazquez Vento Visclosky Volkmer Vucanovich Waldholtz Walsh Wamp Ward Waters Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Williams Wise Wolf Woolsey Wyden Wynn Yates Young (AK) Young (FL) Zeliff Zimmer [[Page H 9707]]

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I want to point out that when the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] makes the motion to recommit with instructions, that we intend to defeat it. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The previous question was ordered. motion to recommit offered by mr. obey