DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996 (House - July 27, 1995) ENT NO. 34 OFFERED BY MR. DEFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio: Page 8, line 9, strike `$16,713,521,000' and insert `$16,725,521,000'.

Page 79, line 23, strike `$22,930,000' and insert `$6,000,000'.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], and that he be permitted to control that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?There was no objection.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 1/2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the issue before us is the issue of Selective Service , a vestigial bureaucracy of the cold war. The subcommittee in its wisdom eliminated funding for the Selective Service , reduced it by $17 million, with the idea that the agency itself would be eliminated.

My amendment would reduce the funding by $17 million, but put the agency into deep standby; that is, give it an opportunity to enter into the late 20th century and develop off-the-shelf technology in case of the remote happenstance of a conscription in a national emergency, that they could go forward, but not continue the postcard registration that is in effect today.

Mr. Chairman, from the beginning there has been no military necessity for Selective Service and the registration, the roster report. Jimmy Carter's 1979 Director of Selective Service found that 8 to 10 days could be saved by registration, but that because of the bottleneck at the training facilities, not one troop would be delivered one day sooner to the battlefield, and of course that day would not cutback very much on training.

In the Department of Defense a 1993 report found that there was no military necessity for continuing draft registration. This is an opportunity to save $17 million over the outyears, that is $102 million in our 7-year objective to balance the budget, which I support.

For this year, we would move $17 million into the underfunded VA medical account. We would also eliminate an unfunded mandate. It is an unfunded mandate, because every university in every jurisdiction that administers a college or student loan program is required to determine whether or not those students have registered for the draft and are currently registered for the draft and whether their address is current.

So we have an opportunity to eliminate a bureaucracy which has no national security purpose and to save funds. This is a great opportunity for this House to go on record, as the House did 2 years ago for 1 month, until we ceded to the Senate, that this is a bureaucracy whose time has passed. We can save money and remove the burden of draft registration from our young people.

Mr. Chairman, patriotism does not come in a postcard, unless you have some bizarre Publisher's Clearing House view of what constitutes patriotism and Selective Service . This is the postcard every young man between 18 and 25 must fill out every time they move.

It is time to do away with this bureaucracy and cede to the economic realities.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I do not stand on this floor and protect Federal spending very often. As a matter of fact, in the last several weeks, I have voted to cut projects in my own district because it is so serious that we get this budget balanced.

This is an important issue. This is national defense. The Joint Chiefs of Staff oppose this amendment. The Committee on National Security, the committee of jurisdiction, opposes it. The National Security Advisor opposes it. President Clinton opposes it.

But let me read a letter, just in case my colleagues do not see through the subterfuge of abolishing this department and putting the money into veterans affairs. The American Legion and the veterans organizations do not want that money put over there. They want the program protected.

Rep. SOLOMON Mr. Chairman, The American Legion strongly opposes the amendment proposed by Peter DeFazio. The American Legion supports the retention and full funding of the Selective Service registration program as being in the best interests of all Americans.

The Selective Service System is a proven, cost-effective, essential and rapid means of reconstituting the required forces to protect our national service .

Let me read you the most important part: [Page: H7904] Removing this rite of passage for a young man would reduce each man's level of consciousness about military service and obligation to defend our country.

I want my colleagues to go home this August break. I want them to go into their offices where the recruitment offices are right next door and I want my colleagues to ask the recruiters. They are having trouble today getting young men and women to voluntarily serve in our all-voluntary military.

Mr. Chairman, these lists are very important tools. We have high schools that will not let recruiters on campus; we have colleges that will not let recruiters on campus. These lists are where we get the names to tell these young men and women what an honorable career it is to serve in the U.S. military in service to their country.

Mr. Chairman, that is why we need to preserve this measly $16 million. It is money well spent for the national security of this country.

Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and I were at the dedication today on the 42d anniversary of the Korean war where Mr. Clinton delivered a beautifully written speech about how important it was to preserve liberty in South Korea.

I thought it was equally important to preserve it in South Vietnam, but at the end of the debate, when we are out of the Committee of the Whole, I will put in the whole text of Bill Clinton's letter to the Commander of the ROTC on December 3, 1969.

Here is what he says about the draft. He says, The draft was justified in World War II, because the life of the people, collectively, was at stake. Individuals had to fight, if the Nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case, nor was Korea an example.

Clinton had exceptions with Korea in spite of his remarks today, and he certainly had exceptions with Vietnam. But remember, Clinton did register for the draft. His problems came much later.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following article for the Record.

Text of Bill Clinton's December 3, 1969 Letter to ROTC Colonel

I am sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have had to have some time to think about this first letter. Almost daily since my return to England I have thought about writing, about what I want to and ought to say.

First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind and decent to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been. One thing which made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat palatable to me was my high regard for you personally. In retrospect, it seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known a little more about me, about my political beliefs and activities. At least you might have thought me more fit for the draft than for ROTC.

Let me try to explain. As you know, I worked for two years in a very minor position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the experience and the salary but also for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam. I did not take the matter lightly but studied it carefully, and there was a time when not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did.

I have written and spoken and marched against the war. One of the national organizers of the Vietnam Moratorium is a close friend of mine. After I left Arkansas last summer, I went to Washington to work in the national headquarters of the Moratorium, then to England to organize the Americans here for demonstrations Oct. 15 and Nov. 16.

Interlocked with the war is the draft issue, which I did not begin to consider separately until early 1968. For a law seminar at Georgetown I wrote a paper on the legal arguments for and against allowing, within the Selective Service System, the classification of selective conscientious objection for those opposed to participation in a particular war, not simply to `participation in war in any form.' From my work I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.

The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight, if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above.

Because of my opposition to the draft and the war. I am in great sympathy with those who are not willing to fight, kill and maybe die for their country (i.e. the particular policy of a particular government) right or wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board, a letter which I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest, best men I know. His country needs men like him more than they know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity.

The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. I do not think our system of government is by definition corrupt, however dangerous and inadequate it has been in recent years. (The society may be corrupt, but that is not the same thing, and if that is true, we are all finished anyway.) When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against, and that is why I contacted you. ROTC was the one way left in which I could possibly, but not positively, avoid both Vietnam and resistance. Going on with my education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to join ROTC. I am back here, and would have been at Arkansas Law School because there is nothing else I can do. In fact, I would like to have been able to take a year out perhaps to teach in a small college or work on some community action project and in the process to decide whether to attend law school or graduate school and how to begin putting what I have learned to use.

But the particulars of my personal life are not nearly as important to me as the principles involved. After I signed the ROTC letter of intent, I began to wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was to protect myself from physical harm. Also, I began to think I had deceived you, not by lies--there were none--but by failing to tell you all the things I'm writing now. I doubt that I had the mental coherence to articulate them then.

At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1-D deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of my self-regard and self-confidence really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept going by eating compulsively and reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally, on Sept. 12 I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board, saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying to help in a case where he really couldn't, and stating that I couldn't do the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible.

I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it on me every day until I got on the plane to return to England. I didn't mail the letter because I didn't see, in the end, how my going in the Army and maybe going to Vietnam would achieve anything except a feeling that I had punished myself and gotten what I deserved. So I came back to England to try to make something of this second year of my Rhodes scholarship.

And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal.

Forgive the length of this letter. There was much to say. There is still a lot to be said, but it can wait. Please say hello to Col. Jones for me.

Merry Christmas.

Sincerely, Bill Clinton.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, practically speaking, the draft and draft registration is a waste of scarce tax dollars, a waste of $17 million this year alone. The draft itself will likely never serve our national security needs, especially in an era of high-tech weapons and computerized weapons systems.

That is speaking practically. Speaking philosophically, unless war is declared, indicating an overwhelming support by the American people, a peacetime draft is totally inconsistent with our national tradition.

Many of those who arrived on our shores and built this great land of liberty were escaping despotism, the despotism of their native lands, which more than anything else was signified by the tyranny of conscription. Only during the cold war was a peacetime conscription tolerated in the United States, and even then, after two decades, it was abandoned with the support of Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Chairman, it is long overdue that we quit wasting money on this anachronism which has nothing to do with the security of our country and everything to do with egos that are trying to prove a point in an argument that should have ended over 20 years ago.

Finally, the American military is a fine example, a shining example, of volunteerism. The strength of our country is in its love of liberty and freedom. Our military today represents that love of liberty because they are volunteers.

Liberty will be safe as long as our people who serve this country, the brave men and women who volunteer, are willing to do so. We should honor them by trusting our people, and we will be free as long as they stand strong and we stand behind them.

We stand for the principles of liberty and justice and democracy that brought people to these shores 200 years ago at the founding of our country.

[TIME: 2200] [Page: H7905]

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio]. The Selective Service System is working well; it is not broke, it does not need fixing. I would say that the system is an insurance policy against the unknown.

Rep. MONTGOMERY We did not know what would happen in the Persian Gulf war. We almost had to go back to the draft because when you have a war, young men and women do not come in and volunteer. We need this system; it is in place. It does not cost a lot of money; it costs less than one Apache helicopter. We have 11,000 volunteers around the country working for the Selective Service . They believe in it. Mr. Chairman, the young men of this country, 98 percent of them, have signed up when their time came. When they have reached 18, they have gone right to the Post Office, they have signed up with the Selective Service System. They like to carry the card; it is a patriotic duty and they appreciate it.

So let us vote down the DeFazio amendment and move ahead with other important issues. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the DeFazio amendment. I support the actions of the full Appropriations Committee to provide $23 million for the Selective Service System for fiscal year 1996. This funding is an inexpensive insurance policy against the unknown. We ought to keep that policy in force. It has the bipartisan support of the House Republican and Democratic leadership, President Clinton, and the Department of Defense. It is also backed by all the Nation's military and veterans organizations, as well as the more than 11,000 Selective Service volunteers across America who will make the process work if it is activated.

And while this is a relatively small amount of money, decisions regarding the future of this agency should not be budget-driven at all. They should really be considered on national security grounds. Since early in this century, we have always had an organized capability to plan for, and to conduct, a draft in a crisis. It has served us well. Now is not the time to terminate that capability. Registration is a quick and easy process that has always been accepted among our 18 year olds. The compliance rate has been steady at 98 or 99 percent over the years. I believe the young people look upon this as a patriotic duty, and that they would be ready to answer the call, if we faced a national crisis.

Funding the Selective Service System does not promote a military draft. I don't support a draft. The all-volunteer force has worked, and continues to work in our Nation's defense. But no one can predict when we might have another war. If this country were forced into a full-scale crisis, we would need more people than our scaled-down all-volunteer force could provide. We simply would be unable to quickly mobilize large numbers of people without the Selective Service System.

We all hope our country never again faces an national emergency, but we ought to be prepared for such an action. Selective Service provides us that ability. It is efficiently run and its computerized data base can mobilize large numbers of people in a short period of time. If we cut this funding for Selective Service today, it could take a year or more to start up again in a crisis. That might be too late in a national emergency. Can we afford to gamble that our country will never again face a national crisis? I think the answer is no. We have an inexpensive hedge against such a crisis with the Selective Service System. Let's keep it. Oppose the DeFazio amendment.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the DeFazio Selective Service amendment. You know, the world is a dangerous place today. We see hot spots all over the world, in a mode of uncertainty for all of us. It is important that we have a ready defense. Mr. Chairman, let me read from the President's May 18, 1994, letter to the Speaker of the House in which he says, I have decided that it is essential to our national security to continue draft registration of the Selective Service system. While tangible military requirements alone do not currently make a mass call-up of American young men likely, there are three reasons I believe we should maintain the Selective Service and the draft registration requirement.

Rep. GILMAN Maintaining that system provides a hedge against unforeseen threats. Terminating this system now can send the wrong signal to our potential enemies. As fewer and fewer members of our society have direct military experience, it is increasingly important to maintain the link between the all-volunteer force and our society at large. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the DeFazio amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] in offering this amendment to end peacetime draft registration. Mr. Chairman, it pains me to oppose my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] on this issue as I consider the gentleman one of the most patriotic Members of this Congress. Mr. Chairman, the VA-HUD appropriations bill includes $23 million for Selective Service .

The Selective Service , as we know it today, was created by President Carter to respond to fears that regional conflicts of the Soviet Union would grow and lead to a superpower showdown. The national defense structure at that time had been gutted and allowed the volunteer Armed Forces to fall to dangerously low levels. No wonder we created a peacetime draft. We could not get Americans to volunteer for service.

Mr. Chairman, that is not the case today. This Congress has made a commitment to a strong national defense. We intend to keep military personnel equipped and ready to fight. We have over 1 million active duty troops. We have over 1 million trained Select Reservists, and we have almost 800,000 Standby Reservists. We have 3 million volunteers, young men and women ready to give their lives in defense of America's freedom. In almost 10 years of the Vietnam war, just under 2.5 million Americans were sent to the combat area; one of every four of those young Americans were drafted.

In 10 years we did not send the number of volunteers that can be deployed from our shores today. Mr. Chairman, I use this example to show that the amendment will not leave the U.S. defense vulnerable. We have 3 million volunteers ready to fight. By cutting $17 million, this amendment leaves $6 million to keep an on-the-shelf system that would in a short period of time be able to augment the volunteer Armed Forces. The $17 million will be transferred to add to the veterans' medical care.

Mr. Chairman, let me sum this up. This amendment is prodefense because instead of feeding a useless bureaucracy, it adds funding to care for the men and women who have defended our liberty. I ask, which is better, to create a strong fighting force or a bloated Federal bureaucracy? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Nation's veterans, vote yes on this amendment.

[Page: H7906]

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], a World War II veteran, and both of his sons served in the Persian Gulf war. I am pleased to yield to him. Mr. de la GARZA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to bring another perspective to this debate. One is that I served in the Navy at the end of World War II and then I served during the Korean war. I was in the Reserves in between. One of the regrets of my life is that I never got to register for the draft. Mr. Chairman, the perspective in my area, though, is we have high schools waiting for ROTC, we have colleges waiting for ROTC.

Registering raises the consciousness of our youth, and I think that it is a pride. Mr. Chairman, I know that there is a technical aspect to it to have to enlist and to be prepared, but it adds to our young people's consciousness that we have a country, that we have fought wars, and that there may be the possibility of other wars. I think that the money is very little for the effort that is done mostly by volunteers, but I think the young people deserve the opportunity to show that they want to serve their country.

Rep. GARZA Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].

Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeFazio amendment. It transfers $17 million from the Selective Service account to the VA medical care account. The opposition to this amendment argues that the Selective Service is a visible symbol of national security, a symbol that we need to protect. Well, $23 million is an awfully expensive symbol. The Department of Defense has stated, and I quote, `Peacetime draft registration could be suspended with no effect on military mobilization requirements.' I will repeat that. The Department of Defense: `Peacetime draft registration could be suspended with no effect on military mobilization requirements.'

Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon goes on the say that with over 1 million trained members in Select Reserve units, plus another 750,000 individual Ready Reserve personnel, we already have the ability to augment active forces through the early days of a major conflict.

If we want a real symbol of patriotism, let us honor those veterans who have made the sacrifice for our Nation. Let us show veterans who have made the ultimate offering that this country has not forgotten them. Mr. Chairman, we just dedicated a memorial to our veterans of the Korean war, showing our praise and thanks to American servicemen. We must not let them think that in just a matter of hours, we have forgotten the sacrifices they made. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to help VA medical and vote for those veterans to whom we owe so much.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have lost sight of first principles. This country was founded on the spirit of liberty, that what we give to our country, we give voluntarily. The Peace Corps voluntary service is voluntary. The draft is not in the spirit of American liberty. It was a concession, a concession to danger and to reality. For most of American history, we did not have it, and then we blessed ourselves as different from the tyrannies of Europe that had it.

Mr. Chairman, for the last 50 years of war, hot and cold, we had to have it, of necessity. But now we do not. We have 2 million men and women under arms, as much as the rest of the planet combined. We would have plenty of time to prepare and to reinstitute a draft if some other nation began arming to match us with supposed danger. There is no danger that justifies this departure from our traditions of liberty.

Mr. Chairman, let us remember what this country is about. A draft, a Selective Service System is obnoxious to the spirit of liberty and ought not to be maintained except as a concession of danger which does not now exist. So I support the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I am going to reserve the balance of my time to close. I believe I have 1 minute.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], a Vietnam hero veteran.

Mr. TANNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I spoke yesterday on the floor on what I thought was a short-sighted amendment. But may I say to my friends, and I understand the arguments on the other side, but I would say in this new world order, this is probably one of the most short-sighted amendments we could adopt, and I say that for this reason: None of us can see the future. All of us know, realize, and understand that one of our roles as the United States of America today is as the leader of the free world. The least we can ask of our citizens, our young people in this country is to register. Most of our NATO allies have compulsory service . We ask only for registration. Mr. Chairman, I say to my friends, that is not too great a price to pay for our liberty.

Rep. TANNER I would hope that we would reject this amendment out of hand. I used to serve in the Selective Service ; we would have a ready pool if something untoward happens in this world. None of us can see the future, and I hope we reject this ill-timed amendment.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield my last minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], a great patriot and a great American. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the position of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] on this issue, because I believe that having a Selective Service System in place maintains American readiness, and that is the crucial issue. If we do not have a Selective Service System in place, we would have to reconstitute it, if we had to go to a draft, and it would take a long period of time to do that, at least 2 years. So I would tell the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] that all those veterans that we all support in terms of health care would much prefer the country being prepared, keeping this tool in place. What is the compliance rate? Ninety-nine percent of our young people have been willing to register without any objection. So this is a good tool, a good mechanism, and I think it keeps our country prepared.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the outstanding gentleman from New York City [Mr. Flake], a longstanding member of this body. (Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I realize that some would consider this to be a peculiar time and a peculiar moment for me to be standing on the Floor. One of the things I have done is, I have analyzed the problems that have developed in this Nation. For the African-American community in particular, I would suggest that one of the worst calamities ever to happen was the elimination of the draft. Mr. Chairman, I am a civil libertarian. But I also understand one thing, that when African-American young men can be taken off street corners, put into a disciplined environment, be able to leave their corner and understand there is a bigger world for them; when they come back they have a sense of discipline, they have an understanding of what it means to be able to make a contribution not only to their own lives, but to the lives of others. [TIME: 2215]

They learned discipline. They learned what it meant to be able to take care of their responsibilities, and they got two major benefits: They had an educational benefit so that they could get an education; and they had an opportunity to purchase their first asset, which was a home. Mr. Chairman, I believe tonight when we talk about eliminating the Selective Service System, one of the problems I have is when we spend so much money building jails, we ought to consider that we ought to do more to put these young people in a situation where they could do something positive.

[Page: H7907]

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 30 seconds.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my good friend, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Floyd Flake, amen, amen, amen. Yes, they do. They learn a little pride, they learn a little patriotism, they learn how not to use drugs, they even get a little religion. Is that not wonderful for this country? Please vote against the DeFazio amendment. Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 1 1/4 minutes.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we are getting a little afield here. This is not about reinstating the draft. We are not about that. The military does not want it. In fact, the Department of Defense has said peacetime draft registration, not conscription, could be suspended with no effect on military mobilization requirements.

Ronald Reagan said, `I believe this proposal, draft registration, is an ill-conceived one and should be rejected. Advance registration will do little to enhance our military preparedness.' That was from Ronald Reagan and the Department of Defense. If this is what we think brings patriotism and citizenship to our kids, not good schools, not decent housing, and all the other things we are eliminating here on the floor, this is an opportunity to eliminate an obsolete Federal bureaucracy and put in plac e a standby system which uses modern computer technology, if indeed a calamity ever comes, and if indeed we ever have to go back to conscription, which I do not believe we will, but we will have that as a standby system.

This is 1940's technology. This is not citizenship, except in some bizarre Publisher's Clearinghouse view of the world where you send in a postcard every time you move. That is not teaching our young people the values that we need to instill.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment to eliminate the Selective Service System. The sponsor says that his amendment does not terminate the program, but puts it on standby. To me, this effectively terminates the program. How do you put an organization which has a standby function for our armed forces on standby?

You don't and you can't-- because it destroys the very concept of readiness. If we should require a draft, how would you select people to serve? Would you choose those who are tall? Would you choose those with red hair? No, you would have a fair and equitable system to determine who would volunteer, and that system takes a great deal of time to develop and maintain. Unfortunately, we have not achieved the goal of world peace. Chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons have created a dangerous atmosphere of conflict and potential for casualties for which DOD may not be prepared. As such, DOD officials recommend the draft as a way to meet such challenges by ensuring a high quality and quantity volunteer force. Simply put, the DeFazio amendment puts our Nation and our freedom at risk. I urge a no vote on the amendment.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WELDON OF FLORIDA TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DEFAZIO Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida to the amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio: Strike the first paragraph and insert the following: Page 12, line 2, strike `$183,435,000,' and insert `$195,455,000,'.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired for debate. Does the gentleman from California insist on his point of order?

Mr. LEWIS of California. Is the chairman telling me the gentleman has no time on his amendment to the amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The time was limited under the unanimous consent agreement to the amendment and all amendments thereto. All time for debate has expired.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, we do not know what the gentleman's amendment does. I think the membership ought to know, in case we want to argue for or against the point of order. The gentleman ought to have a chance to explain. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Weldon, be given two minutes to explain his amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I simply would inquire if the gentleman gets unanimous consent for 2 minutes to offer his amendment, does anybody get a minute or two in case they want to comment or oppose it?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] propounded a unanimous consent request.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

Rep. NADLER There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the intent of my amendment was very simple. Although many areas of the country have adequate medical facilities for veterans, some areas do not. My amendment simply would shift the money to the VA construction account instead of the general medical account as the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has proposed.

Simply put, my amendment would direct these funds to the most needy veterans, the veterans who currently have no medical facilities. As a veteran and as a physician who has provided medical care to many of these veterans, I understand the acute need for the underserved communities.

Today there are 250,000 veterans living in east-central Florida that are in great need of a veterans medical facility. Without the adoption of my amendment to the amendment, these 250,000 veterans, who gave of themselves for our freedom, and other veterans in underserved areas, will see little improvement in their veterans care. The veterans in these areas are the most underserved in the Nation, and we have a responsibility to fulfill our commitments to them.

If we are going to transfer money from the Selective Service to meet the needs of veterans, we should transfer it to serve the most needy veterans. Voting for the Weldon amendment will do this. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, there is a point of order for lack of germaneness against my amendment, so I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment at this time. I appreciate the chairman's recognition.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio]. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] will be postponed.