THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
Now, what we are talking about here is good money after bad. We want the strongest defense possible. We want readiness. We want O&M funded. We want our personnel taken care of. But we do not want precious taxpayer dollars wasted. And they are being wasted.
[Page: H3268] GPO's PDF
This year financial statements were more untimely than ever, and a record $1.7 trillion of unsupported adjustments were made in preparing these statements. That is the Department of Defense Inspector General Semiannual Report, March 31.
Now, defense contractors, the wonderful patriotic folks that they are, returned $984 million they were paid that they were not owed voluntarily. They were not audited. They did not return it because the Pentagon found out they had paid the bills twice, three times, four times, or whatever. They sent back $1 billion voluntarily. And then we got back another $3.6 billion after some minor audits were conducted.
Now, my colleagues cannot tell me that this is enhancing our defense or our readiness, and they certainly cannot tell me it is cost-effective and a good use of our taxpayers' dollars.
This cut would cause, finally, the bureaucrats and the four-stars down at the Pentagon to begin to pay attention how they spend our tax dollars and to have a more cost-effective and better ready force.
[Time: 15:45]
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. BATEMAN).
(Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will comment that this debate is about priorities. The priority here is the overriding priority of providing for our national defense which is not only an obligation, it is a constitutional obligation, and this amendment would strike at the heart of our ability to perform that responsibility. O&M accounts, personnel accounts are exempted under this amendment which means that it falls even more heavily on all the other accounts in the Department of Defense and it would be an onerous, intolerable burden and would indeed, even though it does not come under my Readiness subcommittee, be a tremendous detriment to the status of readiness of our military forces. This amendment deserves resounding defeat.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. HAYES).
(Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this amendment. My friends on the left are headed in the wrong direction once again. Without national security, there can be no Social Security. We cannot afford to continue the slide in priorities of national defense.
I will use the balance of my time to call attention to our chairman who has fought tirelessly throughout his career for the men and women who wear our uniform and protect our country. He has fought against the Clinton budget-cutting ax that has tried to decimate our military.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Support our national security. Support our chairman for whom the title of this bill is properly dedicated. I rise to thank him for his tireless efforts on behalf of our men and women in uniform.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2001. But first and foremost, I would like to recognize our Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. SPENCE, for whom this bill's title is dedicated. No one in this Congress cares more about our men and women in uniform than Mr. SPENCE. He has distinguished himself among his colleagues as a member who leaves politics at the water's edge when faced with issues important to our Armed Services. Chairman SPENCE, we and the millions of Americans who proudly serve our nation in the military are grateful to you.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to recognize our retiring colleagues on the Committee: Mr. KASICH, Mr. PICKETT, Mr. BATEMAN, Mr. FOWLER and Mr. TALENT. I've enjoyed working with them and certainly wish them well.
For almost a decade now, this nation's defense budgets have continued to fall victim to the Clinton Administration's cutting ax. We have gone from a budget in 1992 that exceeded $300 bullion to a budget that in the mid-90s fell perilously low. This year, the Armed Services Committee has put before this body a bill which reverses the downward and misguided trend in defense spending. We renew our commitment in the form of $310 billion to the men and women who selflessly serve in the defenses of our nation. We have continued this year the good work we began last year in what was called the year of the troop.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. WELDON).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. SUNUNU). The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. WELDON) is recognized for 1 minute.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in solid opposition to this amendment. We are in no way, shape or form able to meet the needs of our military. The irony here is that we had President Clinton's former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry come before us in January and tell us that the President's request, the $15 billion above last year, was inadequate and that in his mind it should be more like 10 to $20 billion above the President's request. That is after we put money in each year, bipartisan support, to make those increases occur. Yet Bill Perry still said we were 10 to $20 billion short in what the President requested.
Now, I know some of my colleagues are not happy, but even the proponents of this amendment signed letters to us asking for tens of billions of dollars above what we were willing to give. I have the information here and I am not going to embarrass Members personally, but I can tell you that Members who are supportive of this amendment signed letters to us asking for us to put more money in the defense bill than what the President asked for.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. FRANK).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 503, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. FRANK) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 106-621.
AMENDMENT NO. 3 OFFERED BY MR. DREIER:
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. DREIER:
At the end of title XII (page 338, after line 13), add the following:
SEC. 1205. ADJUSTMENT OF COMPOSITE THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE LEVELS OF HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS .
(a) LAYOVER PERIOD FOR NEW PERFORMANCE LEVELS.--Section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. app. 2404 note) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence of subsection (d), by striking ``180'' and inserting ``60''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) CALCULATION OF 60-DAY PERIOD.--The 60-day period referred to in subsection (d) shall be calculated by excluding the days on which either House of Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of the Congress sine die.''.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to any new composite theoretical performance level established for purposes of section 1211(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 that is submitted by the President pursuant to section 1211(d) of that Act on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 503, the gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. LOFGREN) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, national security is the top priority that we have here in Washington, D.C. As I said during the debate on consideration of the rule that made these amendments
[Page: H3269] GPO's PDF
This is a compromise that has been put together working closely with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SPENCE) the man not only who chairs the committee, but after whom this legislation that we are dealing with here today is named, and I would like to express my great appreciation to him for his stellar leadership and for working with us in putting together this bipartisan compromise, which, as I said, not only includes both sides of the aisle, but also deals with various committees that have been involved in it. It is a very common sense proposal that will establish a 60-day congressional review period when the President raises the threshold for export controls on high speed computers .
The amendment protects our congressional prerogatives. Let me underscore once again, this amendment protects the prerogatives of the United States Congress by ensuring that the review period will not occur when Congress is adjourned sine die. In short, this amendment is a very balanced proposal that is designed to promote sound export controls and the continued global leadership of our Nation's computer industry. As I said, it is very good for our national security.
Let me just say that I happen to believe that as we look at where we are going on this legislation, we have got to deal with our Nation's security, but at the same time, we have to recognize that the computer industry in this country is constantly re-creating itself. It is not just happening in this country, it is happening throughout the rest of the world, they push the technology envelope on a regular basis, and I think that the current export policy regime structure that we have is really out of step with the changes that have taken place with the 6-month current law that does exist. I would like to say that this stems from legislation that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. LOFGREN) and I introduced earlier, and I believe it is very, very important for us to realize that that launched the effort, and now we have worked a compromise which I think can be acceptable all the way around.
I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I cannot help but express my severe disappointment that this measure, which is inferior to the bill introduced with the gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER) on this subject is the best we can do here on the floor. I must point out that the better bill that the gentleman from California and I introduced won unanimous support in the Committee on International Relations. It provides for a 30-day review, which is the proper time period. Why should computers be subjected to a lengthier time review than tanks and missiles? It is preposterous.
I realize that there are Members of the House, some have called them cold warriors, who disagree. But they are a small minority. If the Committee on Rules had allowed the 30-day bill on the floor, we would have seen a huge bipartisan vote for that amendment for that better approach. The leadership instead offers this weaker remedy, and it is a darn shame that we have lost this opportunity to do fully and completely what the White House and Democratic House leadership has asked for for years, a bill that provides for a 30-day review of computer exports .
Mr. Chairman, our Committee on International Relations whip count indicated we would have had a floor vote of about 300 Members for a 30-day bill, with more Democrats in favor than Republicans. Democrats would have outshined the Republicans on this. That, Mr. Chairman, is why this 60-day bill is the only amendment made in order. The Republican leadership wants to look tech friendly, but here, I believe, they are putting partisanship ahead of good policy. I agree that the current export policy is wrongheaded. It means that children's toys, for example, the Sony Playstation 2 that was categorized as a supercomputer cannot be exported for half a year while we update our technology policy in the export arena. The current policy is disastrous. This amendment that is before us is, in fact, an improvement over current policy, but it is far short of what we could have done. I am greatly disappointed. I hope that in the end we can somehow rescue the 30-day provision.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. TAUSCHER), coauthor of the amendment.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dreier-Skelton-Gilman-Tauscher amendment to the defense authorization bill. Current U.S. export controls on supercomputers are Cold War leftovers that are irrelevant to today's global marketplace. Namely, they do not account for the rapid development of widely available technology.
On February 1, President Clinton proposed new controls to reflect modern technology. But that proposal will not take effect until August because of a lengthy 180-day congressional review process. The problem is that modern technology in August is not necessarily what modern technology was in February.
Today we should limit the congressional review period to 30 days, which would be in line with our export controls on tanks and other military technologies. I submitted an amendment to that effect on Monday. I regret that the Committee on Rules ruled against my amendment, and for this 60-day review period. Congress simply does not need 2 months to review technology that is ubiquitous and is being exported by other nations.
When we apply antiquated controls to a fast-paced, evolving market, we hurt American businesses with no added advantage to national security. While a 30-day review period is the right policy, I urge my colleagues to support this 60-day review period held in the Dreier-Skelton-Gilman-Tauscher amendment because it is better policy than the current law.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, let me once again thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. TAUSCHER) for her cosponsorship of this amendment and to say that it is very helpful. Again this is a package that has been put together with both the Republican leadership and many Democrats included in this.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the show-me State, (Mr. SKELTON), distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor with the gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. TAUSCHER) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. GILMAN) to reduce the notification period for changes in the definition of supercomputers. Modern computing was born in the United States of America. The technology leaders in the field are among the firms most strongly driving our economy today.
We may all be familiar with Moore's law which states that the amount of computing power available at a given price doubles every 18 months. Today, though, before the government can legally recognize any advancement in computing power, it must wait for 180 legislative days. That is 6 of those 18 months. In 6 months, foreign competitors can leap ahead of our technology. In 6 month, buyers can be attracted to other products. In 6 months, companies restrained from filling already closed deals can find themselves in great financial difficulty.
[Page: H3270] GPO's PDF
Even worse, we all know that a legislative day is not a day in any conventional sense of the term. It can be as long or as short as we wish. We can perform the miracle Joshua described, to stop the sun in the sky. While that may be useful for legislation, it can stretch the waiting period far beyond the 6 calendar months that can already be so difficult for America's companies, and do so beyond the capacity of any seer to predict.
This amendment recognizes the reality of technology. I would note also that this amendment does not reduce the time available for approval of particular export transactions. All of those controls remain in place.
[Time: 16:00]
I hope that all of my colleagues will join us in recognizing the unique pace of technology development endorsing the rationality and predictability in government regulations.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 1/4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. GILMAN).
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents