C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move the committee do now rise.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank all of the members of the subcommittee who have spent the better part of this year in hearings and in markups for the preparation and the presentation of this bill to the full House. This is a good bill providing for the national defense of our Nation. Mr. Chairman, there are many areas of legislative activity in which the Federal Government finds itself a player, many of which could be done equally as well, if not better, by the States or by the local governments. Mr. Chairman, if there is any one responsibility of the Federal Government, it is to provide for the defense of our Nation and to provide for the security of our national interests wherever they might lie. The bill we present this evening totals $244.1 billion in budget authority and $244.2 billion in outlays. Compared to the fiscal year 2995 level, we are $2.5 billion higher in budget authority, but $5.4 billion less in outlays. We are above the President's budget request, but we are $2.2 billion less than the authorization bill which passed the House on June 15. A strong theme of this bill is to provide readiness for U.S. forces should they be called upon to perform in an arena of hostility and to provide some quality of life for those men and women who serve in our uniformed services who are prepared to do just that. Procurement has been reduced over the last 10 years by 70 percent. This bill does a little bit to turn that around. While we do provide an increase for procurement, we also add funds for readiness and cost- of-living adjustments, pay raises for people in uniforms, and things of this type. We have reduced over 120 programs from the amounts requested by the President. We have fully funded the military pay raise, and have also added $90 million for housing allowances. We have added $1 billion for real property maintenance, and much of that goes for the renovation and the repair of our barracks. Many of our soldiers are today living in World War II barracks that are pretty rundown, and we need to make a considerable change there. This bill does that. Mr. Chairman, there were several philosophies involved here. One was [[Page H 8053]] that anything that goes in this bill must have a military application. It must apply to the national defense or the people who serve in the military. Second, there must be a requirement for what it is that we seek to do. There have been many, many discussions on some of the issues that we will face today. The are written up in the media and reported, some of the high-profile military systems. We took a little different approach this year. I wanted to hold up, if I might, just briefly, this chart, and the saying on this chart was taught to me by my grandmother many, many years ago. It says, ``For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe, the horse was lost; and for want of a horse, the rider was lost, being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for the want of care about a horseshoe nail.'' Mr. Chairman, we have included a lot of horseshoe nails in this bill, items that are never written about, never reported, never politically controversial. I would like to give you an example of some of the shortages we have identified that would be extremely important to our military should they be called into a hostile situation. If I can have the help of a page, I would like to roll out this scroll, and Members take a look at it; we will just twist it a little bit to the side. You will see there are hundreds and hundreds of items that you will never hear about, but are important to the conduct of our military institutions. If you will notice, we have highlighted in blue a number of those areas that we have been able to take care of in this bill. Again, no one is ever going to write about them in the media. They are not controversial. But they are things that need to be done to make sure that our national defense establishment continues to function as it always has in a very, very strong way. So there is the list. We are trying to take care of the horseshoe nails so that we do not lose the shoes and do not lose the riders and do not lose the battle. At this point, Mr. Chairman, there will be a lot of opportunity to discuss more specifics as we get into amendments. Mr. Chairman, I bring to the House of Representatives the fiscal year 1996 Defense appropriations bill. This has been a historic year in the House of Representatives. In the first 100 days we passed the Contract With America as we promised the American people. Ten appropriations bills and major tax legislation have also passed and in those bills the majority party has stood by the commitment to change made during the watershed election of 1994. While it is true that much work remains to be done in this session and many important bills are yet to be passed, no legislation is more important or vital than the bill we are about to act on--the fiscal year 1996 Defense appropriation bill. Over two centuries ago our Founding Fathers embodied in the Constitution the sacred obligation of the Congress to ``provide for the common defense.'' Mr. Chairman, this bill fulfills that constitutional obligation. Before describing in some detail the specifics of this bill, I want to extend my thanks to the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha]. His advice and input was invaluable in the development of this bipartisan bill. I also extend my thanks to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Livingston, for his counsel and support in the development of this legislation. All members of the subcommittee played a key role in the hearings and the markup and I congratulate each of them for a job well done. funding level The Appropriations Committee is recommending to the House a total of $244.1 billion in new budget authority for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996. This funding level is: $2.5 billion above the current fiscal year; $2.2 billion below the House-passed authorization levels; and $7.8 billion above the budget request. These spending levels do not include funds for military construction or the nuclear weapons program of the Department of Energy. Those funds are included in other appropriations bills. At this point in the Record I would like to include a table outlining the committee's recommendations by account.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 2126, the Defense Appropriations Act of 1996, pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 205, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment, and that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic vote on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be less than 15 minutes. Mr. Speaker, in explanation of that unanimous-consent request, I would like the Members to be advised that this evening we will conduct general debate on this bill and debate amendments in title I and title II. We will also consider the C-17 amendment in title III, and after conclusion of the C-17 amendment, then the Committee will rise. We have no expectation of any further recorded votes this evening.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a brief colloquy with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water. Mr. Chairman, as you and the members of the committee know, one of the Department of Energy facilities that is in the process of ceasing production is the Pinellas plant, which I have the privilege of representing. As noted in your report, we are engaged in a very innovative effort there to convert this defense facility to a commercial facility. As part of this effort, the Department of Energy has transferred ownership of the Pinellas facility to the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners in an agreement that benefits both the Federal Government and the people of Pinellas County, FL, I represent. The Federal Government saves valuable resources by not having to bulldoze the facility and go through the time consuming process of surplusing the property. The county gains from retaining access to this facility which will save many of the jobs that would otherwise be lost from its closure. Mr. Chairman, in decommissioning and closing out the defense mission of the Pinellas facility, the Department of Energy has certain obligations to leave the facility in compliance with various state and local codes and configured in such a way that it is safe and able to be utilized for its new commercial mission. The cost of these requirements is much less than the cost the Department would incur if it was to simply bulldoze the entire facility. [[Page H 6792]] Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify that nothing in the bill or accompanying report would in any way impede the ongoing effort to decommission and convert the Pinellas plant from a national defense to a commercial facility.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget for yielding the time. I would like to speak to the area of national defense for just a few minutes. Mr. Speaker, for the last 10 years, we have seen a substantial reduction in each of the 10 years in our national defense budget. The President's budget request for fiscal year 1996 would have been the 11th year that there would have been a decline in our defense budget, at the same time that our deployments are increasing. The President just today announced another $50 million worth of commitment to a rapid reaction force for Bosnia. I just want to tell my colleagues. That we cannot continue to do more with less. We had hoped to make a strong turn in the direction of our national defense this year, and thanks to Speaker Gingrich, and chairman Kasich we are going to be able to do that. We are going to make that change. During the discussion and debate with the other body and the budgeteers there, Speaker Gingrich was very persuasive and argued strongly for keeping a strong national defense number. But I think our colleagues need to know that the 602(b) allocation that my subcommittee had under the original budget resolution was about $2.5 billion under what you included in the authorizing bill a few weeks ago. And we anticipate that our new 602(b) number will be, based on this conference report, will be $2.5 billion less than that, or a total of $5 billion less than what we voted in the authorization bill here just a few weeks ago. The point is that a lot of things that Members would like to do and see included in the defense appropriations bill are not going to be done, because the money is just not going to be there under this budget resolution. I am going to vote for it, because it does make the change in the direction. So this will not be an 11th year decline. But Members need to be aware, there is just not going to be as much defense money out there to spend as many of our colleagues believe that there will be. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me. I compliment the gentleman and the Speaker for the good job they have done in helping to hold the defense number in conference as well as they did.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 79, legislation I have cosponsored to allow Congress and the States to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. As we debate this long overdue legislation to correct a 1989 Supreme Court ruling that allowed for the desecration of the American flag, I cannot help but recall my good friend and constituent Charles Allen, a veteran who served in the Navy during World War I. He is a legend at the Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital at Bay Pines which he helped build. Later he served on the hospital's maintenance team and upon his retirement devoted thousands of hours as a hospital volunteer and donated thousands of dollars to the volunteer services program. Although Charlie died 4 years ago, he is buried at the National Cemetery at Bay Pines and is with us in spirit during every memorial day and Veterans Day program. Perhaps the greatest gift left to us by Charlie Allen was a special tribute to the American flag he wrote and recited at Memorial Day and Veterans Day services for more than 25 years. It is a stirring tribute to Old Glory which I would like to share with my colleagues. It is my privilege and high honor to direct your attention to this beautiful flag of our beloved country. It is, and should always be displayed in the proper place and conditions where it is accorded the position of highest honor and is a constant inspiration to every loyal citizen. It demands unswerving loyalty and wholehearted devotion of the principals of which it is the glorious representative. It is the majestic emblem of freedom under constitutional government. Beneath its protective folds, liberty, equality, and fraternity have become the heritage of every citizen--while the opposed of many nations have found peace and happiness in the land over which it floats. Each time I see Old Glory wave against a clear blue sky. I know that deepest reason that our flag will always fly. And so I set about to write just how it made me feel. To see the banner fluttering, our guardian so real. I will not say, as others did, for which each color stands. I'll only state this grand old flag a Nation great commands. And that each mother's sons of us would more than gladly give. Our blood, and yes, our very life so it can wave and live. The flags of many empires have come and gone, but the Stars and Stripes remain. Alone of all flags, it has the sanctity of revelation. He who lives under it, is loyal to it, is loyal to truth and justice everywhere. For as long as it flies on land, sea, or air, Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this earth. (Charles Allen, WW I veteran) Before his death, Charlie willed his tribute to the flag to another legend of Bay Pines and our local veterans community, Mr. W.B. Mackall. He is a leader of Florida's Citizen Flag Alliance who now carries on the tradition of reciting this tribute at the appropriate events. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran and as one who dedicated his life to other veterans and to our Nation, it is most appropriate that Charlie Allen's word from the heart about the American flag be a part of this historic debate. In just a few sentences, he captures its essence and the urgent need to protect the Stars and Stripes from those who would desecrate it. Those who would trample on our flag also trample upon our Nation, the honor of Charlie Allen, all those who went before him into battle, and all those who will go into battle in the future in defense of our Nation and our way of life.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1361, the Coast Guard Authorization Act. The men and women of the Coast Guard are life savers, they protect our national security, they fight crime, and they protect our environment. The people of Florida have a special appreciation for the work of the Coast Guard. As the chairman of the Florida congressional delegation, I in particular pay tribute to the 7th District which serves Florida, the busiest Coast Guard district in our Nation. It is a privilege for me to represent Pinellas County, FL, which is home to three Coast Guard stations including Group St. Petersburg, which is responsible for protecting Florida's west coast down through the Carribbean, the Clearwater Air Station, the largest Coast Guard Air Station in the United States, and the Sand Key Station, which responds regularly to emergencies at sea and in our inland waters. Because the Coast Guard has consistently responded to untraditional challenges to our Nation with determination, creativity, and effectiveness, the Congress has seen fit year after year to add to its long list of multifaceted responsibilities. In the early 1980's, when the flow of illegal narcotics through the Carribbean threatened the nationality security of the United States, the U.S. Coast Guard was charged with slamming the door on this drug trade. The vigilance with which the Coast Guard undertook this mission forced drug smugglers to abandon Florida as a primary point of entry into the United States. Those who persist in trying to bring drugs into our Nation through Florida have been met with the firm response, such as last year when the St. Petersburg based Coast Guard Cutter Point Countess intercepted the freighter Inge Frank near the Sunshine Skyway bridge at the entrance to Tampa Bay, escorted it to its mooring, and joined the DEA and Customs Service in a raid that seized more than 6,000 pounds of cocaine, preventing $272 million in illegal drugs from reaching our streets. Most recently, when our Nation was faced with an exodus of tens of thousands of Cuban and Haitian refugees, the Coast Guard responded. The 7th District rescued more than 23,000 Haitians at sea in unsafe vessels last Spring, and expanded its operations last Summer, pulling more than 35,000 Cubans from the waters of the Florida Straits. Aircraft from the Clearwater Air Station flew 3,200 flying hours in support of these missions, and delivered over 600 tons of cargo to the U.S. forces implementing our immigration policies on shore. It is the Coast Guard which is responsible for enforcing all United States laws at sea, whether they be immigration, narcotics, environmental, fishery, or safety-related. It is the Coast Guard which is responsible for its well known search and rescue missions at sea. This mission not only saves lives just about every day of the year, but also saves significant amount of public and private property. Recently the Florida pilot of a small plane learned this lesson the hard way, when, far from land, he radioed a mayday, saying he had only 15 minutes of fuel left. His plane hit the water 70 miles west of Tampa Bay, and sank within 60 seconds. A nearby Coast Guard Falcon Fanjet used direction-finding equipment to locate the plane, witnessed it hit the water, and dropped a life-raft and emergency locating transmitter which enabled the pilot to be rescued later. Similar air rescues have saved 188 lives off the coasts of Florida alone since last April, and will continue to provide Americans with a level of safety at sea. It is also the Coast Guard which is responsible for the less glamorous, but vitally important responsibility of maintaining vital aids to navigation that keep ships and boats out of jeopardy. Though some take channel markers, ocean buoys, loran stations, and other necessary navigational aids for granted, they are the critical signposts that allow for the safe passage of boaters on our waterways. The Coast Guard receives invaluable help in fulfilling many of these diverse responsibilities from the volunteers of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. The 572 active members of Auxiliary Division 8, who provide support to Group St. Petersburg, make up the largest auxiliary unit in the Nation. Auxiliary members are very active in educating the public about boating safety issues, providing free boating safety classes and dockside courtesy marine examinations. Last year alone, in addition to training 1,330 students and conducting 8,104 courtesy marine examinations, Division 8 also conducted 1,364 support missions, logged over 14,607 underway hours, saved five lives, assisted 393 boaters, and saved more than $2.6 million in property. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the least known and understood of the Coast Guard's mission is one for which I have funding and oversight responsibility: defense readiness. When activated by the President, the Coast Guard assists the U.S. Navy in time of conflict, guarding the foreign and domestic ports we use to [[Page E1011]] deliver troops and vital supplies in support of operations such as Desert Shield/Desert Storm, Grenada, and most recently in Haiti. In recognition of these readiness and port security missions, the Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security, which I chair, has consistently provided funding support for the Coast Guard. In addition, I have worked to ensure that we better link our military intelligence assets with the Coast Guard to provide greater assistance in its drug-interdiction and security- related efforts. Such intelligence and detection capabilities dramatically improve the Coast Guard's ability to do its job, and I look forward to promoting more effective cooperation between the services in the future. While the duties and expectations of the Coast Guard continue to grow, the funding necessary to fully meet them has not. Over the years, the Coast Guard has worked to find cost-effective ways to meet the demands placed upon it within an extremely tight budget, and I commend them. It is difficult to find another part of Government that does so much, so well, with so little. The last 2 years serve as the greatest example of this conflict between goals and resources. This administration has recommended sharp reductions in funding for drug interdiction, and as a result reports now indicate Caribbean trafficking may again be rising. Changing administration policies with regard to Haiti and Cuba have encouraged greater and greater numbers of refugees to take to the water, forcing the Coast Guard to shift assets from other important areas to tackle this overwhelming burden. In each of these instances, the Coast Guard has become our Nation's last line of defense, and the line is being stretched thinner and thinner. If past performance is any guide, the men and women of the Coast Guard will continue to meet the new threats to America's national and economic security with creativity, perseverance, and professionalism. Mr. Speaker, I salute them and their important mission and rise in support of this legislation to give them the tools to continue to undertake their important work which saves lives and protects our coastline.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 660, the Housing for Older Persons Act, which is legislation I have cosponsored to once and for all specify with certainty which housing communities qualify as adult-only communities. The Fair Housing Act of 1988 prohibited housing discrimination based on familial status. Congress, however, was very clear in providing exemptions for adult-only communities. Unfortunately, in the 7 years since enactment of the law, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has been unable to issue regulations that adequately set out the requirements for adult-only communities that are to be exempted from the act. The result has been great uncertainty among the residents of these communities, volunteers serving in homeowner associations, and real estate agents who sell or rent homes. It is an issue that has generated great interest among the residents of many, many senior retirement communities across the 10th Congressional District of Florida which I have the privilege to represent. Their concern was heard by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in a public hearing last October in Tampa. Hundreds of Tampa Bay area residents turned out to share these concerns and as a result, HUD announced late last year that it was again withdrawing proposed regulations to clarify which communities are exempt from the Fair Housing Act's requirements. The primary concern I raised in my testimony at that hearing, which was echoed by the many residents of senior housing communities, is HUD's proposed requirement that these communities provide ``significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of older persons.'' The lack of a clear definition for significant facilities has created havoc in housing communities throughout our Nation, and particularly in Pinellas County, FL. Without some clarification, these communities have been unable to complete the process by which they receive exemptions from the act's familial status discrimination provisions. Regulations promulgated by the Department in 1991 did not clearly define what facilities and services are required to meet this test, and throughout the past 4 years, HUD officials have admitted they are unable to provide a specific list of these requirements. The result is that many housing communities have not been able to determine with certainty whether they qualify for the exemption. Because HUD has no certification process, the only way this issue can be determined is through the courts. Therefore, communities find themselves in limbo until they are challenged in court and their exemption is approved or rejected. A number of housing communities throughout our Nation have been challenged in court by HUD and have had their senior-only status overturned. Congress recognized the problems created by the original 1991 regulations and in October 1992 enacted legislation requiring the Department to issue revised regulations to more clearly define the significant facilities required for communities to retain their senior status. Unfortunately, HUD's latest proposed regulations, issued on March 14, one again fail to clear up the confusion and uncertainty caused by past drafts. As I have said in cosponsoring legislation in the 101st, 102d, 103d, and this 104th Congress to correct this problem, we must take legislative action to provide a definitive solution if HUD cannot solve the problem and ease the confusion through the regulatory route. The legislation before us today, which I cosponsored, simply deletes the significant structures and services requirement from the law. This enables housing communities to definitively determine whether or not they qualify for the 55-and-older exemption from the familial status discrimination provisions. The sole remaining criteria is whether or not 80 percent of a housing community's residents are 55 or older. Mr. Chairman, the problem we seek to solve today is not only important to the people of the many adult communities I represent, but to the hundreds of volunteers who serve as directors for the countless housing communities which remain uncertain whether they are in compliance or in violation of Federal law. This is a good legislative solution to a long overdue problem and I urge the support of my colleagues.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to use all of the time we have allocated today. I did want to pay a special tribute to my chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], because as we proceeded with strong support of what we were doing. I have to admit, after having served in the minority for so many years, to be the chairman of the subcommittee that brought out the first appropriation bill of this new Congress was gratifying, and it was a partnership effort. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the former chairman of the subcommittee, could not have been a stronger supporter, and I think we both felt really good when the subcommittee and the full committee agreed to the recommendation we made on how to deal with this emergency supplemental. We moved it even ahead of the request from the administration, because we recognized the emergency and the time element. I would also want to say that, in addition to the Members who were so helpful and so supportive, I never saw a staff work as many hours, attend as many meetings, draw up as many papers and make as many comparisons on so many different ideas as I saw in this particular exercise. I pay tribute to that staff, because even after we would go home at 10 or 11 o'clock at night, they were still here after we left, and they were here before we got back the next morning. Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a couple of minutes to say that we are facing not just a supplemental issue today but we are facing a real concern about the readiness of our forces and the ability to defend our national interest. For the last 10 years we have experienced a reduction, a reduction in the amount of funding made available to our national defense establishment for pay for forces, for uniforms, for training, for modernization of equipment. We have reduced that budget for the last 10 years. The budget request that we deal with this year would be the 11th reduction. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and I have discussed this on a number of occasions, we would not be able to do today what we did in Desert Storm just a few short years ago, because of the tremendous reductions. We have to face up to and recognize that the many contingencies that are not planned for, that are not funded, that we have to develop some way to deal with these contingencies. If the President is going to deploy forces around the world on an unplanned contingency, he ought to consult with the Congress of the United States, so we can work together not only in devising the plan to handle the deployment and the mission, but to determine how we are going to pay for it before we get into a crisis situation like we face today. If we do not pass this supplemental today, the Navy is prepared to tie up ships within the next couple of weeks. The Air Force and the Navy both are prepared to ground airplanes; not prepared to, they would be forced to, because the money for those purposes has already been spent for these contingencies. Mr. Speaker, one other issue, Haiti. There was a strong difference of opinion in this House whether or not we should even have gone to Haiti to return Aristide to office. Nevertheless, it happened. Our troops performed almost flawlessly. We should be so extremely proud of the way that they did perform in Haiti. However, Haiti was not a military threat to our Nation, not a security threat to our Nation, and the Department of Defense should not have to pay the bill for the Haiti operation. It should come from another account, whether it is the State Department or the foreign aid account. It should not come out of the hide of the national defense establishment that is already suffering from 10 years of funding reductions. Mr. Speaker, I hope Members will pay close attention, because the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, which we now call the Committee on National Security, and I have met on many occasions since the beginning of this Congress. We have reached an agreement that any projects, any items that are going to be authorized in their bill or appropriated by our appropriations subcommittee had better have a national defense application. We are not going to use the national defense budget for a slush fund for anyone. We are going to be very careful not to use the national defense funding for political projects, whatever they might be. Whatever is funded and authorized in this Congress for national defense is going to be used for national defense. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for the stature that he displays in being willing to support this legislation today, although he opposed it in the beginning. It is somewhat different than it was in the beginning. I appreciate all the support from the gentleman from Wisconsin and his staff, all of the Members of the House and our subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Department of Defense is facing a critical shortfall in its funding for military readiness and training-- because the funds we provided last year for these activities have been siphoned off, and used to pay for the large number of contingency operations that our Armed Forces have been involved in since last fall. Haiti, Bosnia, the Middle East, refugee relief at Guantanamo Bay, Korea, Somalia. All these operations, the DOD has been forced to pay for out of hide--from funds intended for training and readiness in the second half of the current fiscal year. The second half of the fiscal year began last Saturday, Mr. Speaker-- and if we do not act to replenish the DOD's accounts, beginning next week we will start to see the Pentagon ordering cutbacks in all of the military services. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have recommended that without this supplemental, in April they will have to order the Air Force to cut flying hours by 25 percent; the Navy will have to cancel scheduled maintenance on two aircraft carriers; the Marines will have to cancel exercises and cut operating forces budgets by 20 percent; and the Army will have to cut tank training 25 percent and scrub preparations for exercises at the National Training Center in California. That is just what will happen in April. It will get worse as the year goes on. That is why we have to act--and why we have brought back to the House this emergency supplemental for the DOD which, while it is not perfect, provides the only way we can avoid what will be a disaster for military readiness. This bill provides just over $3 billion in readiness funding for the military--and it not only covers the costs of the contingency operations I just mentioned but also provides money to fully finance the military pay raise for 1995, as well as a $250 million shortfall in pay accounts for our forces stationed overseas, brought on by the drop of the dollar. And at the same time we provide this emergency funding, we have more than fully offset these costs--by recommending over $3.8 billion worth of rescissions and offsets. As a result, even with the funding for the DOD, this bill will reduce current budget authority by over $740 million dollars. Now, I have to admit I am not entirely comfortable with having to totally offset an emergency supplemental for our military. Our committee has never done this before; and we have to realize that depending on the type of military actions our forces may have to carry out, it may be impossile to totally offset Defense supplementals in the future. But in this bill we have done so. I must also admit that I am not entirely pleased with how we finally offset this bill. After a long and hard negotiation with the other body, we ended up agreeing to taking nearly $2.4 billion in rescissions out of other Defense accounts--$2.26 billion from programs under the National Security subcommittee, and another $100 million from military construction. On top of this, $200 million is coming from the defense- related accounts in the Department of Energy. In conference, we were basically asked to rob Peter to pay Paul--take money out of other Defense accounts to pay for Defense readiness. We did our best to recommend Defense offsets which were less critical, less important--but the fact remains, the Defense budget has been cut for 10 straight years. There are no easy cuts left. And we had a very difficult time settling with the Senate which Defense accounts were important, and which ones were not. None of this was easy for the House conferees--but we were left with no choice. And I want to thank Chairman Vucanovich and Chairman Myers for helping with offsets, because without these we could not have gotten an agreement before the recess. We would not be in this situation if the President would have come to the Congress and asked for approval of these operations as well as the needed money in advance. With the exception of the deployments to the Middle East and Korea, we are not talking about emergency military operations here. We are operations--things that are not the core mission of the Department of Defense. That is one thing we were all able to agree upon in our conference-- that the President just cannot keep ordering these operations and then expect us to come up with the money afterwards. We just can not keep doing this. We will destroy military readiness and other critical defense programs. We lay all this out in the statement of managers. And I know, based on how all of us in the conference felt--Chairman Livingston, Senators Hatfield, Byrd, Stevens, and Inouye; and certainly myself and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha--that if the President does not do something to correct this then we will come back in the 1996 appropriations bills with some further recommendations of our own. So, this is not a perfect agreement, but it is one that we have to pass. And I want to thank Bob Livingston and the ranking member of our subcommittee, Jack Murtha, as well as our Senate counterparts for their efforts to bring this emergency bill back to the House before we leave this week. This is a good bill, and one that is absolutely essential. I urge your support.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of H.R. 1327, the Tax Fairness and deficit Reduction Act of 1995, one of the most pro family bills this House will consider. This legislation, which incorporates several provisions contained in the 10 points of the Republican Contract With America, makes good on the promise we made to ease the tax burden on American families. H.R. 1327 delivers the kind of genuine change that the American people asked for in November, and I am pleased that the House is acting on this legislation, as pledged, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress. The family is the core of our society, and the Congress should support our nation's families, not penalize them. We support families with this legislation by addressing the so-called ``marriage penalty'', where married couples pay more in taxes than they would as two individuals. I have long been a critic of the marriage penalty, and believe that the government should not punish people for getting married. H.R. 1327 is pro family because it will help this same couple when they have children by providing a $500 per child tax credit. If they choose to adopt a child, this bill establishes a refundable tax credit for adoption expenses. This same family will also benefit from the creation of the American Dream Savings Account. Individuals can contribute up to $2,000 a year into these accounts. They can then make tax-free withdrawals if used for retirement income, for a first time home purchase, for post secondary education, for medical emergencies, or purchasing long-term care health insurance. Make no mistake about it, tonight we are helping families buy their first home, educate themselves or their children, and plan for their future medical needs. While the initial deposit is taxed, by allowing interest in these accounts to accrue tax free, we will foster the American dreams of home ownership, a better job, and retirement security while increasing our nation's savings rate. When families start to age, H.R. 1327 provides a $500 refundable tax credit for individuals who care for a disabled parent or grandparent at home. Families will benefit because this legislation encourages people to plan ahead for their long-term care needs, by allowing tax-free withdrawals from IRAs, 401(k) plans, and other qualified pension plans so they can purchase long-term care insurance. Also, H.R. 1347 allows a tax deduction for long-term care premiums, and encourages employers to provide these policies by treating them as a tax-free employee benefit like regular health insurance. As the Representative of Florida's Tenth Congressional District, which is home to one of our Nation's largest populations of senior citizens, I am also pleased that H.R. 1327 will remove a number of onerous burdens on older Americans. One of the first bills I ever introduced in Congress would have repealed the Social Security earnings limitation, and I have consistently cosponsored legislation that would overturn the unfair limit on outside income which penalizes older Americans for working. While the former House Leadership failed to allow us to debate this legislation on its own in the House, and prohibited us from raising it as an amendment to any other pending legislation, I am pleased that today, we will be able to vote for this bill that would raise the earnings limit from $11,280 to $30,000 over the next 5 years. As I have repeatedly told my colleagues, I firmly believe our Nation can benefit greatly from the skills and experience of older employees, and we should encourage their contributions to our economy. Another portion of the contract that I strongly support is the repeal of the 1993 Clinton tax increase on Social Security benefits. I opposed the original legislation that required senior citizens who earn more than $34,000, taxes on 85 percent of their Social Security benefits. I cosponsored legislation in the 103d Congress to repeal this tax increase, and I will support this legislation before us which will roll this tax back over 5 years to the pre-Clinton levels. Finally, one of the most important parts of the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act is a reduction in the capital gains tax rate. I have long been supportive of these efforts, because this reduction will be good for all Americans. Allowing individuals a deduction equal to 50 percent of their net capital gains for a taxable year is good economic policy because it will encourage personal savings in our Nation and help our captial markets preform more efficiently. By increasing our Nation's personal savings, we will make it easier for businesses to raise capital in order to expand, and create more jobs, leading in turn to more economic opportunities for every American. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us this evening makes good on many of the promises we made in the Contract With America. It is pro family. It promotes higher education. It respects the contributions older Americans have made to our Nation. It encourages home ownership. It fosters savings. Most importantly, it creates greater economic opportunities for all sectors of our society. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is pro family, pro growth, and pro America. I urge its strong support this evening.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. First I would like to make the comment that we have run out of time on this issue. The Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force and the Coast Guard have spent the money for these contingency operations that we are trying to replace now. I do not recall anybody coming here from the administration to check with Congress to see if it was okay to go to Rwanda or to Somalia or to Bosnia or any of those contingencies. But yet they did it. And we are being asked to pay the bill. We are prepared to do that. We understand the importance. The House, despite what the gentleman from Wisconsin has just implied, the House subcommittee on national security passed out this bill on January 27. That was even before we got the official request from the administration. And within 2 weeks we had gone through the full committee and were on the way to the House floor. And the House has expedited this entire issue, as it needs to be expedited. And when the gentleman suggests that there has been delay and the bill has been held out there, he should point the finger at where it belongs. The House has moved expeditiously to meet this responsibility and here is why, in response to my distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. Based on a January public hearing with Secretary Perry and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shalikashvili, here is what we were told, and the commanders in chief, and field commanders have confirmed this throughout the hearing process since we voted this emergency supplemental out of subcommittee. Unless we get this money appropriated and quick, all U.S.-based units under the Forces Command will have to stop most major training by May 31. will be canceled. Flight hours and spare parts stocks will be cut, and all active Army divisions will be degraded in readiness. I do not want that to happen. I do not think my colleagues in the House want that to happen. In the Navy, four carrier airwings will be forced to stand down. The first stand down will happen in April. More than 500 aircraft would have to be grounded, and 30,000 flight hours cut. Required maintenance on two carriers and seven other ships will be deferred or reduced and ship and aviation spare parts reserves will be drawn down by 30 days worth of requirement. The Marine Corps, since unfunded contingency requirements equate to approximately 80 percent of the Marine Corps's operation forces budget, the corps will see severe readiness impact starting in July. Training for Marine expeditionary forces, in both the Atlantic and Pacific, with the exception of those forces already deployed, will be halted. All categories of training as well as maintenance and spare parts will face deep reductions, and marine air squadrons will be forced to stand down and suffer reduced readiness. For the Air Force, flight hours for fighter, bomber, tanker, and airlift squadrons will have to be reduced by 50 percent over a 12-week period. Ten JCS and tactical training exercises will be canceled. Over 24,000 permanent change of station moves will be frozen and aircraft and engine repair as well as scheduled runway and real property maintenance will be deferred. Mr. Speaker, those are just the highlights of what we are talking about if we do not replace this money. When I say ``replace,'' that is exactly what I mean, because the money to pay for the contingencies in Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia and Cuba and Haiti and Korea, et cetera, has already been borrowed from those training and those operation and maintenance accounts. What we are trying to do is pay it back before the services have to stand down their training. And would it not be a shame to stand down the training and then have to turn around and stand it back up again with a tremendous additional cost. And what happens if a young soldier out there, his training is not maintained and he is not quite up to par because of the lack of training? What if he gets hurt or what if he hurts someone else because his training is not at the level that it should be? I do not think any of us what to carry that burden on our shoulders. We want readiness today. We want readiness in the mid-term. And we want readiness for our forces in the long-term. This is one of the first major steps that we have to take to provide that readiness. It is time to get on with this business. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is exactly right. This has dragged on too long. Not because of any fault of the House of Representatives, but it has dragged on too long. We should have this bill completed by Thursday of this week, on the President's desk by Friday morning, if that is possible, and I think that it is. But Mr. Obey's motion to instruct will certainly carry on this delay considerably further than we would like it to. I say let us vote against the Obey motion and get on with the conference.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The baloney, if you are talking about the information that I read here, came from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act. The American voters spoke last November and demanded a change in the way Government operates. For too long, past Congresses saw Washington as the solution to every problem, and created Federal program after Federal program in an attempt to eliminate poverty. Unfortunately, those programs, many which were born during the Great Society push of 30 years ago, failed. After spending more than $5 trillion on Federal welfare programs, the number of welfare recipients, illegitimate births, and fraudulent welfare claims have skyrocketed. We have to change the welfare system that has failed so badly to meet the needs of our society. With this legislation, Congress can begin to break the cycle of poverty and hopelessness that has trapped generation after generation of Americans. It is a welfare system that often penalizes those trying to break their reliance on Government subsidies, money doled out by a Federal bureaucracy that has become too big, too inefficient, and too expensive. To free the next generation of Americans from this trap, the Personal Responsibility Act, one of the most critical components of the Republican Contract With America, promises comprehensive reform of the American welfare system. The present system penalizes the working poor, and offers little incentive to leave the welfare rolls once they begin receiving benefits. We must reform these programs to discourage people from ever becoming dependent on welfare in the first place, and do everything we can to get them off as quickly as possible. This bill gives States broad flexibility to design work training and education programs, and tells welfare recipients they will have to work in order to receive cash benefits. The Personal Responsibility Act will teach people job skills, assist them in assuming more productive roles in society, and help them earn the dignity that comes from working for a living. For too long, many welfare recipients have taken their benefits for granted, and forgotten that their actions have consequences. This bill would deter teen pregnancies by ending cash payments to unwed mothers under 18. States could use these savings to establish programs to help young mothers with pregnancy prevention and counseling, adoption services, small-group homes, and other helpful innovations. Additionally, the bill streamlines procedures to collect child support and implements strict policies to enforce child support orders, to ensure that both parents live up to their responsibilities. Despite the misleading rhetoric of those opposed to this legislation, the Personal Responsibility Act offers far greater hope for children than the current system. Aside from its tough enforcement of child support--which ensures that parents, not the taxpayers, care for their children--the legislation significantly increases the funds that will actually go toward serving the needs of our Nation's children. Currently, programs that provide school lunches and breakfasts, low- cost milk for children, and nutritional supplements for pregnant women and infants are all run from Washington with separate rules for eligibility, regulations for operation, and sources of funding. While Congress will continue to fund these programs, their day-to-day operations will be left to the States, who know how to meet the needs of their own residents far better than bureaucrats in Washington, who attempt to design one program that meets the needs of people in 50 very different States. As a result, the funds spent helping children, as opposed to feeding the bureaucracy, will actually increase under this bill. For example by capping administrative costs in State agencies administering child care programs at 5 percent, the Personal Responsibility Act will make 95 cents of every dollar available for direct child services. This is in sharp contrast to the 68 cents per dollar that currently goes directly for child care services. Thirty-two cents of every dollar is being lost in layers of bureaucracy and centralized planning activities. Eliminating administrative overhead will make available $162 million more for direct child care services next year alone. In addition, with the adoption of an amendment Wednesday, which I strongly supported, we provide another $150 million per year to care for children so their parents can work. This means with the additional funding and administrative savings, there will be $322 million more available for direct child care services next year, an increase of 17.5 percent. There are also increases in other areas. Many of my constituents and many State and local officials from Florida from whom I have received input on this legislation, stress the success and importance of the Women, Infants, and Children Program, or WIC. This legislation addresses those concerns by guaranteeing that not less than 80 percent of the funds provided for family nutritional programs will go to WIC, ensuring an increase of $588 million over the next 5 years. With regard to the School Lunch Program, this legislation provides for a $1.2 billion, or 17.5-percent increase in funding over the next 5 years. Moreover, States would be required to devote not less than 80 percent of these funds to meet the needs of low-income children. No more than 2 percent of the funds may be spent on administrative costs. By ending cash benefits to certain groups such as noncitizens, unwed mothers under 18, and individuals with fraudulent claims, and by limiting administrative overhead, section after section of this legislation makes greater resources available for those trying to put themselves back on their feet. As they do this, by taking advantage of the federally-funded--but State and locally run--job training and child care programs to get off the welfare rolls, an even smaller pool of welfare recipients will have access to even more help. By cutting layer upon layer of Washington bureaucracy out of the equation and allowing State and local governments to care for their own people, we will create a more effective, less costly system that will truly put children and families first. This legislation does not threaten needy Americans willing to take responsibility for their lives. It threatens Washington bureaucrats and entrenched lobbyists that make their living tending to the cruel, ineffective welfare trap that has developed over 30 years. We have an opportunity with this legislation to bring about real reform that makes those who have opposed progress for decades uncomfortable. They had 30 years to change a crumbling and ineffective welfare system, and did nothing. Now they are forced to defend the status quo where only one of every 250 people on welfare work, where one-third of the children born in our country are to unwed mothers, and where the average welfare family receives benefits on-and-off for 13 years. This must change. Mr. Chairman, the welfare reform provisions of the Contract With America are designed to give people a way out of poverty, not surround them with it for the rest of their lives. These bold reforms are expected to put 1.5 million welfare recipients to work and save the American taxpayer almost $80 billion over the next 5 years. The emphasis on self-reliance will make welfare a program of temporary assistance, not a way of life. Americans who believe in a day's pay for a day's work are the cornerstones of our society. The programs Congress passes should foster this attitude, instead of encouraging millions of people to depend on the American taxpayers for their livelihood. The Personal Responsibility Act meets this goal, fulfills our contract promise, and responds to the wishes and demands of the American people.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this weekend I had the opportunity to participate in the St. Petersburg International Folk Fair Society's [SPIFFS] 20th annual International Folk Fair, one of our city's great annual traditions. As in past years, thousands of people flocked to the Thunderdome, the future home of major league baseball's Tampa Bay Devil Rays, to sample the ethnic cuisines of 55 nationalities and to walk through the cultural exhibits of the SPIFFS world village. It was in 1976 that Bethia Caffery, a former columnist for the St. Petersburg Evening Independent, brought together a small group of our community's prominent ethnic leaders to organize SPIFFS as part of the city of St. Petersburg's Bicentennial Celebration. Their early successes turned this small, loosely organized group into a full time organization that now provides year-round programs throughout Pinellas County and the Tampa Bay area. They have also become a tremendous resource for our local schools to educate students about the history and culture of countries around the world, large and small. This year's fair included the colorful Ukrainian Academy of Dance from Toronto, Canada, and Step Dancers from Ireland. Additional entertainment was provided by the various local groups that comprise SPIFFS. For me, however, the significance of SPIFFS takes hold during the opening ceremonies where the flags of the nations of SPIFFS gather around the Stars and Stripes. It is then that each of us puts away ethnic political differences to join in giving thanks for the freedoms of America and to pledge allegiance to the United States. Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I congratulate SPIFFS, its officers, and its societies for the contributions they have made to our community and to our country over these past 20 years. I salute them for their work, look forward to next year's fair, and thank the St. Petersburg International Folk Fair Society for making their Representative in Congress proud of their efforts to educate each of us about our Nation's great ethnic diversity and heritage.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, because of my longstanding support to affirm the right of State legislatures and the U.S. Congress to protect the American flag, I am proud to once again be an original introducer today of a constitutional amendment declaring that Congress and the States shall have the power to prohibit the act of physical desecration of the American flag. This is not the first time the House will consider this resolution. As my colleagues may recall, on June 21, 1990, the House fell just 34 votes short of the two-thirds vote required to approve this constitutional amendment. Since that time, 44 States have passed resolutions calling on Congress to give them the opportunity to ratify an amendment to the Constitution protecting the flag--6 more than the 38 States needed for ratification. Mr. Speaker, it is only fitting that on the 50th anniversary of the historic flag-raising atop Iwo Jima's Mount Suribachi, that we reintroduce this amendment to protect our flag from desecration. On this occasion we remember the 75,000 marines who fought for 36 days in one of the most grueling battles of World War II, a time when ``uncommon valor was a common virtue.'' We honor the nearly 7,000 men who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country during the fight for the island, and the countless others wounded in this campaign. In memory of those who fought that battle, we have erected the U.S. Marine Corps War Memorial in Arlington, VA, where the moving re- creation of that famous flag-raising stands with the glorious Stars and Stripes atop the flagpole. It stands as a memorial not only to the Americans who served so bravely in that battle, but for all Americans who marched in battle behind the Stars and Stripes to restore freedom and protect the ideals which our great flag symbolizes. Few things dishonor their memory more than acts of desecration of the American flag. Our flag waves across the United States as a symbol of freedom and democracy and as a constant reminder of those who paid the ultimate price in service to their country. Casting contempt on the flag is the same, in my view, as casting contempt upon our Constitution and all the values of our great Nation for which it stands--liberty, equality, and justice for all. On battlefields throughout our Nation's history many lives have been lost and much pain and suffering endured by those committed to the defense of these values. To desecrate the flag is to cast contempt upon these brave men and women who carried our flag into battle with them; soldiers who have fought so bravely and offered their lives to protect the freedoms which we enjoy today and the promise of a free future for our children. The United States stands as an example of freedom and justice for all to follow. The American flag remains a symbol throughout the world of that freedom and justice. It has inspired ordinary Americans to make extraordinary sacrifice, and should be respected and protected always. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring and supporting this amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman does not have to make a unanimous consent request. I will be very happy to share the time. What I would like to do is yield myself 5 minutes, 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump].

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 75.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is amendment No. 75, which restores the veterans' appropriation.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 75. Parliamentary inquiry

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I want to make a point of order that the gentleman's unanimous consent to have 15 minutes was not acted upon, because I yielded to him 5 of my 15 minutes.