C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the amendment called up restores the funding for the Veterans' Administration military care facilities. And the amendment No. 75 was actually filed by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. Amendment No. 80, which is one that I had filed at the same time, is identical, so I called up No. 75 and I am going to yield most of the time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump]. I just briefly want to say that today we are dealing with the Contract With America. At the same time when we talk about veterans issues and veterans medical care, we are talking about America's contract with veterans. One hundred thirty years ago this month, just outside this Chamber, just prior to the end of the Civil War, President Lincoln made that commitment. And he said, ``Let us strive on to finish the work we are in,'' and he said, ``to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and for his orphan.'' Those words are engraved in the walls of the Department of Veterans Affairs headquarters downtown as a reaffirmation of that commitment to our veterans. In keeping with that commitment to America's veterans, we offer this amendment today. The amendment I offer today makes good on that contract with our veterans, one that predates Lincoln's words with its origins in the Plymouth Colony in 1636 and later the Continental Congress in 1776. Our Nation has always provided for the needs of those who providing pensions for those disabled in battle, and beginning in 1811, by providing medical care. In fact the United States is acknowledged to have the world's most comprehensive system for providing assistance for veterans. Today we honor our Nation's veterans by providing them with the finest medical care available. Unfortunately, in States such as Florida, which I have the privilege to represent, where the population of veterans continues to grow rapidly, and where veterans facilities provide service to thousands of other veterans visiting our State, the need for veterans medical care far outpaces our ability to provide services. To address this problem, the Department of Veterans Affairs recommended to Congress last year the establishment of a number of relatively low-cost outpatient clinics that could expand the services available to veterans with inpatient hospital care. Because of or booming veterans population, the Department of Veterans Affairs recommended, and the Congress included funding for, two outpatient clinics in Florida, and four others elsewhere in our Nation. These are urgently needed projects to provide for the immediate health care needs of our aging veterans population. In testimony before the Appropriations Committee last year, the Department of Veterans Affairs talked of the need for the outpatient clinic at Gainesville to replace the almost 30-year-old facility there, which is more than 35- percent space deficient. Space is so restricted there that a converted hallway serves as an emergency room to treat veterans. The Orlando outpatient clinic and nursing home will replace leased space which was sized for a caseload half of what is being handled by VA personnel there. This project will not only move the VA out of the current undersized lease space, but it will take advantage of a tremendous opportunity to renovate the hospital at the Orlando Naval Training Center to not only provide much needed primary and preventive care, but also to meet the long-term needs of our veterans. My amendment also will restore $50 million for the VA's medical equipment account, an account which the Secretary tells me already has a backlog of $800 million in needed purchases. This equipment ensures that veterans have access to and are receiving the most up-to-date treatment using the most advanced medical technology and equipment available in our Nation today. We should expect our veterans to receive no less. Mr. Chairman, as provided for by the rule, my amendment would fully offset the cost of restoring these rescissions by increasing the committee's recommended rescission for the AmeriCorps. The 103d Congress approved legislation establishing a national service corps over my objection. In voting against this legislation, I told my colleagues that our Nation should not be creating new and costly programs with growing long-term financial requirements at a time when we are trying to reduce Federal spending and eliminate wasteful and unnecessary programs. Our Nation has a long and rich history of volunteering to help our neighbors in need. We do not need a new Federal program to pay Americans to volunteer, especially with Federal funds that will squeeze the resources available for higher priority needs such as caring for our Nation's veterans. Mr. Chairman, our veterans are the finest national service corps that has ever served our country. We should honor them today by adopting this amendment to make good on our contract to provide our veterans in their greatest time of need. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and myself jointly offer this amendment in the hopes that the House, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has suggested, will consider it posthaste. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] to manage the rest of our time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in proud observance of the sesquicentennial anniversary of the State of Florida. One hundred and fifty years ago today, President John Tyler signed into law the Florida Statehood bill, enacted 2 days earlier by the 28th Congress, admitting Florida as the 27th State. Today, the Sunshine State has risen in stature to become the fourth largest State of the Union, with an economy larger than all but 14 countries. In the last 15 years alone, its population has risen by more than a third, further enriching one of the most economically successful, culturally vibrant regions of America. The Sunshine State plays a vital role in American prosperity. In 1513, Ponce de Leon's initial landfalls along Florida's pristine beaches marked the first steps by European settlers on the shores of North America. Today, the more than 20 million visitors to our State each year walk these same beaches seeking their own Fountain of Youth. Florida welcomes tourists from across the world who come to enjoy our cultural offerings and environmental beauty. Our State's rich natural resources provide our Nation with a healthy diet of fruits, vegetables, and fish, and its manufacturing industries supply America with key electrical, transportation and high technology equipment. Since the Spanish-American War, critical military facilities across Florida have defended ability to protect our national interests throughout the hemisphere. On the threshold of the 21st century, the United States relies ever more on Florida's strengths in education and technology, assets that have already launched us into a new frontier. As Commander Steve Oswald told our Florida congressional delegation this morning while orbiting the Earth in Space Shuttle Endeavor, ``Every time Americans have left the planet to explore space, they have done so from Florida.'' The greatest testament to Florida's excellence comes from the tens of thousands of people each year who choose to make our State their homes. Whether by birth or by choice, Floridians are a proud people who have contributed greatly to the history of our Nation. Twenty-two sons of Florida have won the Nation's highest award for bravery, the Congressional Medal of Honor, for protecting our country's freedoms. Here in the Nation's Capital, 96 Floridians have served our State and our Nation in the House of Representatives, and 30 have distinguished themselves through their service in the Senate. We salute our predecessors and the numerous other Floridians who have served in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the Federal Government. From the white, sandy beaches and intercostal waterways of Pinellas County, the area which I have the privilege to represent, to the tropical Keys to the south, the rich pine forests to the north, and the excitement of the Kennedy Space Center on the east coast, after 150 years, the Sunshine State has become synonymous with great historic moments and diverse natural beauty. Florida's many diverse successes have transformed it into a gateway between North and South America, a bridge from the Earth to space, and a link connecting us to our future. With great pride, I salute the State of Florida on this historic day. May the sun always shine on its future.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House, with my strong support, approved H.R. 872, the National Security Revitalization Act, legislation to maintain our national defense's strength and credibility, and to ensure that no U.S. troops are forced to serve under foreign commands. This legislation which we have approved, 1 of the 10 points of the Contract With America, is designed to refocus our Nation's military priorities. The measure counters the policies of an administration that has cut the defense budget too deep, spread U.S. forces too thin on peacekeeping missions irrelevant to U.S. security interests, and subordinated U.S. policy to United Nations dominated goals. As the chairman of the National Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I deal on a daily basis with the costs of providing for our Nation's defense. In my service on the subcommittee, I have fought cuts to our defense budget that I believe place it in dangerous decline. If steps are not taken to reverse this alarming trend, our ability to defend vital U.S. disastrous consequences. While our Armed Forces have been forced to work within greatly increased budget restraints, they have been deployed on more peacetime and humanitarian missions per year than ever before--missions that were often unplanned and unbudgeted. Besides humanitarian and peacekeeping operations already underway in Rwanda, Bosnia, and the Middle East, the U.S. faced several new missions including military intervention in Haiti, preemptive buildups in Kuwait and Korea and the movement of forces off the coast of Somalia to assist the withdrawal of U.N. personnel. Nearly 100,000 troops have been deployed on these operations in just the past 4 months, and almost 50,000 remain deployed today. The costs of such demanding efforts totals over $2.5 billion. Mr. Speaker, such costs do not begin to reveal the effects of these deployments on troop morale and readiness. In fact, to finance these operations the Department of Defense uses operation and maintenance accounts which results in funds being diverted from critical tasks such as training, base support operations and equipment maintenance. I am pleased that today we approved a supplemental appropriation to cover these costs and to prevent damage to the readiness and training of our troops. However, today's appropriation does not address the manner in which this President and the civilian leadership at the Pentagon are committing our diminishing defense resources both unilaterally and through multilateral operations with the United Nations. Haiti is just a recent example of our military forces being placed at serious risk in pursuit of ill-defined objectives outside the scope of their traditional and essential mission of protecting the national security interests of the United States. H.R. 872 will drastically reform our Nation's contributions to the United Nations and U.N. operations, and gives Congress a greater say in committing troops abroad. The National Security Revitalization Act recognizes a fundamental reality about U.S. involvement in the United Nations--while the price tag for peacekeeping has skyrocketed, the United Nation has had little success making any country more peaceful. In fact, the term ``U.N. peacekeeping'' has virtually become a cruel oxymoron. There is no better illustration of this than the war in the former Yugoslavia. It is the United Nation's most expensive operation at $1.6 billion a year, of which the United States is billed for about 31.7 percent or about $500 million annually. Money which has purchased little in the way of peace. H.R. 872 will fight the growing influence of the United Nation's over America's troops and budget. The measure would deduct from our Nations' annual United Nation peacekeeping dues the extra costs the Pentagon incurs in United States-let military missions that receive the blessing of the United Nation--like Haiti. In addition, the bill prohibits American troops from serving under U.N. commanders unless the President cites a national security need. Mr. Speaker, approval of the National Security Revitalization Act is good news for U.S. foreign policy and U.S. taxpayers. It is high time we reaffirmed our Nation's commitment to a strong national defense and reigned in U.N. peacekeeping which is out of control.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. But it has come at the expense of training, which is readiness.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is a strong debate here today about whether or not the bipartisan committee bill is paid for, but we believe that it is paid for, honestly, sincerely. We have reason to believe that it is paid for, because the numbers add up. We have been very specific. Now, if we want to compare, we are dealing now with the Obey substitute, compare the Obey substitute with the bipartisan committee bill and we cannot do it. The reason we cannot do it is that the Obey substitute does not have any specifics in the area of rescissions, no specifics. How do we compare? The Obey substitute may never pay out in outlays, because we do not know and he does not know today what the Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a mistake, and we have never done this, to allow the Secretary of Defense that kind of power. This is even more powerful than a line-item veto. Once the President gets the line-item veto, which we support, the Obey substitute makes the Secretary of Defense even more powerful, because he could veto whatever and it would not have to come back to Congress for a reconsideration, or a re-vote, where a line-item veto would have to.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin for 20 seconds for a response as to what a holy picture is.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. However, Mr. Chairman, the procedure for overriding a veto in the line-item veto is nonexistent in the Obey substitute. The point is, we are specific. If we read the report, we can see exactly what we are providing money for and exactly what we are rescinding. I want to repeat something I said earlier. A reporter asked me about ``You guys spending this money.'' We did not spend this money. This money was spent by the President of the United States when he sent about 100,000 American troops around the globe in the last year to Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Cuba, Haiti, Southwest Asia, Korea, and the list goes on and on. He did not come to Congress to get authority for those contingencies or for those deployments, but now we have a bill and we have to pay for it. The responsible position is to pay for it. Mr. Chairman, I just suggest that Congress has that responsibility, and not the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense had authority to rescind programs, let me tell Members one of the things that is in this bill for 1995 that they wanted to get rid of, and it was made very public. That was the money we put in there for breast cancer research. That was suggested to us at the subcommittee, and we said no, we are not going to rescind the breast cancer research money. Shortly thereafter, the President issued a directive to the Secretary, ``No, you cannot rescind it, either.''

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to something the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] mentioned about environmental cleanup. The decision we take here on the environmental issue here does not have a thing to do with moneys appropriated for environmental cleanup. To the contrary, we still leave about $1.65 billion available for cleanup. There is a fund of $400 million for the study of potential future cleanups, potential future cleanups. Of that $400 million, we ask to rescind $150 million. It will not have an adverse effect on environmental cleanup. Mr. Chairman, the issue seems to be whether or not the bipartisan bill presented by the subcommittee and the full committee is baloney, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has said, and I understand what baloney is; or that it is a charade, as the gentleman said, and I understand what a charade is; or that it is a red herring, as the gentleman suggested, and I do understand what a red herring is; or that we are posing for holy pictures. Here is where I have a little problem, because I do not know what a holy picture is. I do not know what it means to pose for holy pictures. I have heard that statement an awful lot, Mr. Chairman, from the gentleman from Wisconsin, but I do not really understand what posing for holy pictures means.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, that is the intention of the committee.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would respond to the distinguished gentlewoman that we do believe in the concept of dual use technology and that it provides significant benefits. In fact, the fiscal year 1995 defense appropriations bill contains $1.5 billion for dual-use efforts this year, and we are not rescinding any of that money here. Now, the difference between dual-use programs and TRP is this: Dual- use programs go directly to military items, military issues. TRP does not necessarily do that, and we are going to scrub the TRP requests in the fiscal year 1996 bill to make sure if they are funded they will be directly related to national defense and nothing else. I thank the gentlewoman for her inquiry. In the few seconds I have left, I want to point out to the Members that this is something very unusual. We have received a communication from the Citizens against Government Waste. Their first sentence says, The Council for Citizens against Government Waste strongly endorses H.R. 845 and H.R. 889, which together make supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense and pay for the increases with spending cuts. We oppose the Obey substitute and all other amendments. Together, H.R. 845 and H.R. 889 comprise good faith, pro-taxpayer legislation for which the Committee on Appropriations should receive credit and support, and we urge your vote for the committee's package. That is, again, a pretty substantial statement. In addition, if the Members would be willing to check with the American Legion or VFW or some of the other veterans organizations or military service organizations, I believe they would find also considerable support for the package that we present today.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I will respond to the gentlewoman by saying that there is broad support to preserve the defense industrial and technology base by encouraging the development of technologies with both civilian and military applications.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I yield to our colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I have to say that I am really proud of the bill that we have brought before the Members today. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and I worked closely together. Did I like everything that we did? No, because he made me change a few things. There were several things that I asked him to agree to, which he agreed to. But we have a good, bipartisan national defense bill here today. That is what we are talking about, is national defense. Why are we here today? We are here today because the President, over fiscal years 1994-95, has sent troops to Bosnia, has sent troops to Somalia twice, to the area of Korea, to the southwest Asian area, to Rwanda, to perform refugee interdiction off Cuba, and Haiti. And at one time, these contingency operations have involved approximately 100,000 American troops in deployments that were not planned and not paid for. Where did the money come from, then, to pay for these contingencies? It came from the fourth quarter operations and maintenance and training accounts of all of the military services. What does that mean? It means that by March 31, and this is according to the Pentagon and the Department of Defense, as of March 31 if the money has not been replaced that was spent for these contingencies that most of us were not even consulted about, that fourth quarter training is going to be degraded. The word ``degraded'' came from General Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He made that point in a public hearing, that training in the fourth quarter will be seriously degraded if we do not return this money. That is what we are here for. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee added some additional readiness enhancements. We identified about $2 billion worth of similar readiness requirements that had not been provided for in anybody's request, except the field commanders and the war-fighting military. We looked through that list and picked out $670 million that we added to this emergency readiness package. Mr. Chairman, what is the biggest part of that additional readiness package? It is salary increases for the soldiers and the sailors and the Marines and the airmen and the airwomen and all of those who serve in the military, whether they are in the continental United States or whether they are deployed somewhere overseas on a permanent basis, or whether they are part of these contingency operations; a pay increase that this Congress required but did not provide the necessary money to fully fund. That is the biggest item in the enhancement package that we added on. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha]. We have never offset or paid for an emergency defense supplemental bill before. But we have in this case, because of the comments made by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] about balancing the budget, which we intend to do, and it is not going to be easy. As a matter of fact, this vote on defense today is going to be one of the easiest appropriation votes Members are going to have this year, because there are going to be a lot of cutting amendments. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, we came up with a rescission package that we took from nonessential items that were paid for through the defense budget that really did not add a whole lot to our national defense. Therefore, we bring to the Members a bill, and despite all the arguments about budget authority or budget outlays or CBO numbers here and CBO numbers there, I am not really into the politics of this. I am not really into the juggling of the numbers to make something appear to be something that it is not. I am here to provide for the strongest national defense possible for the least amount of money; in other words, squeezing to get as much as we can out of the defense dollar. That is what this bill does. We are setting a new precedent with this bill, and we are making history today, because we are for the first time paying for this supplemental appropriations bill, despite the fact that it is an emergency. Someone just asked me out in the Speaker's lobby, ``You guys are spending for this and spending for that.'' Back up. We guys did not spend this money. We had no part of the decision in spending this money. The President of the United States decided to go to these various contingencies. He spent the money. From a political standpoint, we could have just sat back and waited for him to send his budget request. We could have sat on it for weeks or months. That would have been very irresponsible for us to do, because this money is necessary by March 31 or we are going to stand down flying hours. Red Flag, Members all know about Red Flag and Top Gun. Would it not be a shame to close down these training activities, and they would be closed down, if we do not provide this money? Red Flag and Top Gun are the best experience that a combat pilot will ever have, other than going into actual combat. Members can talk to any pilot anywhere in the world that has ever gone to Top Gun or Red Flag, and they will tell us that, that this is what prepares them to be superior in the air. Would it not be a shame for us to delay this bill and have to cancel Red Flag or Top Gun? Would it not be a shame that we do not have enough money for flying time and spare parts to keep the airplanes going so that our flyers and or pilots can stay proficient in flying from a carrier or landing on a carrier? Even in the very best conditions, that is a sensitive operation. We need to keep our pilots proficient so they do not fly their airplanes into the water, and that they do not crash their airplanes on the flight decks. This is training. Mr. Chairman, now about this bill, it has been suggested and hinted that maybe there were some pet projects in here, maybe we did something for some Congressmen that is buried that would be helpful to that Congressman or Congresswoman personally, politically, back in their districts. There is nothing in this bill to provide a special interest project of any kind to any member of the Congress, to any defense contractor, to any special interest. There is no money in here for that. These monies are directed to the U.S. Department of Defense for training, for operations, for maintenance, for spare parts, for keeping airplanes and ships and guns and tanks and everything ready to use and ready to be used for training. It brings back our accounts that are being sorely depleted. This is readiness at its best. Mr. Chairman, when I talk about readiness, it is important, because some of these programs are down the road. It is important to note, and one of the very distinguished generals who testified just this week before our subcommittee made the point ``There is more to readiness than just readiness. There is immediate readiness, there is midterm readiness, and there is long-term readiness. If we do not do the things today to prepare us for midterm and long-term readiness, we are going to be in serious trouble.'' Members all know the story about the three Army divisions that were rated C-3, which is considerably below the readiness rating that we would like them to have. Our colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Floyd Spence], made this notation in a public statement. It was argued at the Pentagon that that was not true, but finally they came back and admitted, yes, it was true. We just cannot afford to let our military be affected in this way. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. Put aside the arguments over politics, or who got to offer an amendment and who did not get to offer an amendment. Remember, this is just part of the procedure. We have to go to the other body. They have to go to the subcommittee, their full committee, to the floor. We have to go to conference. We need to expedite this activity. I ask that Members pay close attention to the debate that follows as to the seriousness of this national defense readiness bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments and commend him for his support. for his arguments. He has done an outstanding job. Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the Obey substitute and the passage of the bill.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield back to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. That is a hypothetical question, and what I am saying to the gentleman is we do not affect the balanced budget with this bill because we are paying for the bill with specifics. I realize there are disagreements, but tell me how many outlays would we save with the Obey substitute next year or the year after, can the gentleman tell me?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. As the gentleman well knows, there is a proposal from the Department of Defense that we should consider that would deal with that very issue, how do you give the Pentagon flexibility to pay for these kind of contingency operations. But the best answer is this. If there is going to be a major contingency operation, a deployment of U.S. troops, the President should consult with the Congress and the Congress should be a player, because now we are having to pay the bill for something that we did not authorize or approve nor were we consulted. What I am suggesting is that in the future, whoever the President might be, that consultation with Congress is good, and it would eliminate the obvious competitions that might arise when it comes time to pay the bill. Now as far as the gentleman's suggestion that there might be a better way, there might be. We will monitor that very closely as we go through the fiscal year 1996 process.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield briefly to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat that the Obey amendment does not specify any of this. We are up front. We are honest. We have given you the target to look at. We have listed item by item by item for rescission, we have listed item by item for inclusion in the bill. This is an up-front, genuine, sincere effort to make sure that our military forces have what they need for quality of life and to be trained for readiness. The minority leader spoke eloquently here on the floor just a few minutes ago and he says we are not voting on the details of this bill today. I disagree with that. We are going to vote here in a few minutes on the details of the Obey substitute. Following that, we are going to vote on the details of this bill. Do not try to read anything else into it. We have been up front, we have been very specific. You know what the details are. He mentioned also that this has come after passing the balanced budget amendment, and that is true, but what he failed to say was this money was spent before this Congress ever convened. This money was spent. We are paying it back. That is the only responsible thing to do. We could have sat back and waited and not done anything, let the administration push and cry and shove. We decided that was not the responsible way to do this. In fact, we had to pull them to get them to send down their requests for the supplemental. In fact, we marked this up on the 27th day of January and did not get their request until February 6. So we are pulling and expediting this emergency supplemental. The minority leader also mentioned corrupting the system. I am not exactly sure what he meant there. I think that fits into the category of holy pictures. He talked about a flash of red ink. Our numbers again are specific. The numbers of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] are not specific. He leaves a $2.5 billion blank check for the Secretary of Defense. I would say that despite the minority leader's contention that we have more money than we need for readiness, it is just not true. The way you find that out is you go to the folks who run the wars, who run the battles, the field commanders, the battalion commanders, the regimental commanders, the colonels and the generals and you ask them what is the problem with readiness and they will give you a many-page report on where readiness is short. We have denied readiness requirements dealing with flying hours and training and steaming and spare parts and ammunition accounts and things of this nature. The fact is we could spend a lot more to make our readiness more ready. I want to make this last point. Readiness today is one issue. Readiness this time next year is something else, and readiness this time 5 years from now is something else again. What we do today not only deals with today's readiness but also next year and 5 years down the road and maybe even 10 years down the road. We have an important responsibility today. I am satisfied that we are going to do it properly and we are going to vote against the unspecific Obey substitute and we are going to vote for the bipartisan committee bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], a former chairman of this subcommittee, for the strong support that he gave us as we put this bill together. I think that he would disagree with the previous speaker, as do I, that this bill is flawed. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. I do not think I have ever seen a perfect bill before the House since I have been here. But this is a good bill. The problem that we face today is time, Mr. Speaker. When I was designated chairman of this subcommittee in the middle of November, I began meeting with folks at the Pentagon, the Defense Department, the civilian leaders, the military leaders, with commanders in the field, with war fighters. My question was, ``What do we need to look forward to for the next year to help secure our Nation's defense?'' Every one to a person said, ``We've got to have the supplemental to pay for the contingencies'' that we have already committed or are involved in committing today. And they told us without any hesitation that March 31 was the deadline, that if we did not get the money to them by March 31, fourth-quarter training, flying hours, steaming hours, all kind of training was going to be degraded to the point that it would have a serious effect on readiness. We committed to moving this bill expeditiously so that we could get it to the Defense Department by March 31. We are a week behind. We set a schedule that would move us along expeditiously. We are a week behind that schedule. We had difficulty getting a request for this supplemental from the administration. We finally got it. The truth is, we marked up ahead of the administration's request just to keep on our timetable. One of the reasons that the administration hesitated in sending a request down here was that they were afraid this would become a target, or a vehicle for all kind of mischievous or extraneous nondefense- related activities. They did not want that to happen. Neither did we. So we have brought this out under a rule where the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has every opportunity to rewrite every section of this bill. He will do so in a substitute that he will offer here shortly. But we have got to keep on track. We cannot sit here and decide what we think is right based on what we assume might happen in the other body. We should not be assuming what the other body might do. We have got to keep this bill moving. We will get into the debate as to why after we pass the rule, but this rule is a good rule to expedite this emergency defense supplemental.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 831, and urge my colleagues to join with me in approving this important legislation. As one who has previously cosponsored legislation that would extend the 25-percent personal income tax deduction for health insurance cost for individuals who are self-employed, I am pleased that the Ways and Means Committee and the House leadership have brought this bill forward in such an expedient manner. It is important that we move quickly in approving this legislation, which lapsed on December 31, 1993, because the American taxpayers deserve to know that they can count on this deduction as they prepare their taxes before the April 15 filing deadline. Fairness dictates that we restore this deduction. We should not punish individuals based solely on the fact that they are self- employed. Fairness also dictates that this deduction be made permanent so that the taxpayers know year to year that they can count on this deduction. This Congress should be encouraging individuals to purchase health care insurance, and H.R. 831 will play a significant role in reaching this goal. It is my hope that our colleagues in the other body will move expeditiously in approving this legislation, so that self-employed individuals in our Nation are able to prepare their tax returns before the April 15 filing deadline and know that they will not have to file amended returns, and also secure in the knowledge that this important deduction will not lapse again. I urge my colleagues to join with me in strong support of this legislation.