Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 138 (Thursday, September 7, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 138 (Thursday, September 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8630-H8662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I ask that a statement appear in the Record
following rollcall 641 indicating that, though I was recorded as voting
``aye'' it was my intention to vote ``no,'' on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226,
noes 191, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 642]

AYES--226

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Borski
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Costello
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Forbes
Fox
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--191

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Klug
Kolbe
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Moran
Nadler
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Pryce
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Tanner
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
White
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--17

Bishop
Blute
Cox
Dingell
Fattah
Flake
Maloney
McKinney
Moakley
Morella
Petri
Reynolds
Sisisky
Tucker
Waldholtz
Waters
Wilson

{time} 1452

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. At the conclusion of the debate on the last amendment,
2 hours and 38 minutes are remaining for debate on further amendments
to this bill.
Title III is open to amendment at any point.

amendment no. 72 offered by mr. schumer

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 72 offered by Mr. Schumer:
Page 16, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this amendment, but
let me explain to my colleagues as to why. The gentleman from New York
[Mr. King] and I first intended to offer this amendment when the bill
was originally scheduled for floor consideration a month ago. During
the same week the House voted overwhelmingly to lift the arms embargo
in the former Yugoslavia. The amendment was a simple one. It would
supply $50 million worth of TOW antitank missiles to the Bosnian
Government which it desperately needs to overcome the lopsided
advantage of the Bosnian Serbs in tanks and armored vehicles and it was
intended simply to demonstrate that Congress was willing to put its
money where its mouth was, not only by lifting the embargo but by
actually providing the Moslems with some of the weapons they need to
defend themselves, weapons they cannot afford to buy after years of
devastating aggression against them.
I still believe in that amendment, I still believe the Moslems have
the right to defend themselves, and at the proper time the United
States as the leader of the free world has the duty to assist them.
But, of course, significant events have occurred over the last month
and they are transpiring as we speak today. The Bosnian Serbs suffered
a dramatic reversal in Crimea, the United Nations and the allies have
shown renewed resolve and have taken firm action to halt Serb
aggression, and for the first time in a while, perhaps since the
beginning of hostilities, it looks like we might be on the verge

[[Page H 8631]]
of meaningful negotiations among the warring parties. As a result,
there now exists a bipartisan consensus to delay a vote to override the
President's veto of the embargo legislation. Therefore, in light of
these circumstances, I intend to withdraw the amendment pending the
status and progress of negotiations and events on the ground.
Therefore, my colleagues, I say, let us see how events transpire. If
need be, we can come back and do this amendment, but I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.
The text of title IV is as follows:

TITLE IV

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, as authorized by law;
$8,715,481,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1997: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph may be obligated or expended
to develop or purchase equipment for an Aegis destroyer
variant (commonly known as ``Flight IIA'') whose initial
operating capability is budgeted to be achieved prior to the
initial operating capability of the Ship Self-Defense
program, nor to develop sensor, processor, or display
capabilities which duplicate in any way those being developed
in the Ship Self-Defense program: Provided further, That
funds appropriated in this paragraph for development of the
LPD-17 ship may not be obligated unless the baseline design
of the ship includes cooperative engagement capability and
sufficient own-ship self-defense capability against advanced
sea-skimming antiship cruise missiles in the baseline design
to achieve an estimated probability of survival from attack
by such missiles at a level no less than any other Navy ship:
Provided further, That funds appropriated in this paragraph
which are available for the V-22 may be used to meet unique
requirements of the Special Operations Forces: Provided
further, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph,
$189,972,000 shall not be obligated or expended until
authorized by law.

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department
of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary
for basic and applied scientific research, development, test
and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be
designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense,
pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and
operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law;
$9,029,666,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1997: Provided, That not less
than $170,000,000 of the funds appropriated in this
paragraph shall be made available only for the Sea-Based
Wide Area Defense (Navy Upper-Tier) program.

Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, of independent
activities of the Director, Test and Evaluation in the
direction and supervision of developmental test and
evaluation, including performance and joint developmental
testing and evaluation; and administrative expenses in
connection therewith; $259,341,000, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 1997: Provided, That of the
funds appropriated in this paragraph, $20,000,000 shall not
be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation in the direction and supervision of operational
test and evaluation, including initial operational test and
evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of,
production decisions; joint operational testing and
evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection
therewith; $22,587,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 1997.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title IV?
If not, the Clerk will designate title V.
The text of title V is as follows:

TITLE V

REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

Defense Business Operations Fund

For the Defense Business Operations Fund; $1,573,800,000:
Provided, That of this amount, $695,100,000 shall be
available only for the liquidation of prior year accumulated
operating losses of the Department of the Navy: Provided
further, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph,
$695,100,000 shall not be obligated or expended until
authorized by law.

National Defense Sealift Fund

For National Defense Sealift Fund programs, projects, and
activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve
Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship
Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App 1744); $974,220,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That none of the
funds provided in this paragraph shall be used to award a new
contract that provides for the acquisition of any of the
following major components unless such components are
manufactured in the United States: auxiliary equipment,
including pumps, for all shipboard services; propulsion
system components (that is; engines, reduction gears, and
propellers); shipboard cranes; and spreaders for shipboard
cranes: Provided further, That the exercise of an option in a
contract awarded through the obligation of previously
appropriated funds shall not be considered to be the award of
a new contract: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
military department responsible for such procurement may
waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying
in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title V?
If not, the Clerk will designate title VI.
The text of title VI is as follows:

TITLE VI

OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

Defense Health Program

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, for medical and
health care programs of the Department of Defense, as
authorized by law; $10,205,158,000, of which $9,917,125,000
shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which
$288,033,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1998, shall be for Procurement: Provided, That
the Department shall continue to competitively contract
during fiscal year 1996 for mail service pharmacy for at
least two multi-state regions in addition to the ongoing
solicitations for Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Delaware,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Hawaii, as well as each base
closure area not supported by an at-risk managed care plan;
that such services shall be procured independent of any other
Department managed care contracts; that one multi-state
region shall include the State of Kentucky and that one
multi-state region shall include the State of New Mexico:
Provided, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph,
$40,600,000 shall not be obligated or expended until
authorized by law.

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical
agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of
section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act,
1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other
chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical
weapon stockpile, $746,698,000, of which $393,850,000 shall
be for Operation and maintenance, $299,448,000 shall be for
Procurement to remain available until September 30, 1998, and
$53,400,000 shall be for Research, development, test and
evaluation to remain available until September 30, 1997.

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense

(including transfer of funds)

For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the
Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations
available to the Department of Defense for military personnel
of the reserve components serving under the provisions of
title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for Operation and
maintenance; for Procurement; and for Research, development,
test and evaluation; $688,432,000: Provided, That the funds
appropriated by this paragraph shall be available for
obligation for the same time period and for the same purpose
as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further,
That the transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in
addition to any transfer authority contained elsewhere in
this Act: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in
this paragraph,

[[Page H 8632]]
$8,000,000 shall not be obligated or expended until authorized by law.

Office of the Inspector General

For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended; $178,226,000, of which
$177,226,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which
not to exceed $400,000 is available for emergencies and
extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or
authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made
on his certificate of necessity for confidential military
purposes; and of which $1,000,000 to remain available until
September 30, 1998, shall be for Procurement.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title VI?
If not, the Clerk will designate title VII.
The text of title VII is as follows:

TITLE VII

RELATED AGENCIES

Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund

For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement
and Disability System Fund, to maintain proper funding level
for continuing the operation of the Central Intelligence
Agency Retirement and Disability System; $213,900,000.

National Security Education Trust Fund

(rescission)

Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 102-172, Public Law 103-50, Public Law 103-139, and
Public Law 103-335, $78,100,000 are rescinded: Provided, That
the balance of funds in the National Security Education Trust
Fund (established pursuant to section 804 of the David L.
Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C.
1904)), other than such amount as is necessary for
obligations made before the date of the enactment of this
Act, is hereby reduced to zero: Provided further, That no
outlay may be made from the Fund after the date of the
enactment of this Act other than to liquidation of all such
obligations made before such date, the Fund shall be closed:
Provided further, That no obligation may be made from the
Fund after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Intelligence Community Management Account

For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community
Management Account; $75,683,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title VII?
If not, the Clerk will designate title VIII.
The text of title VIII is as follows:
TITLE VIII

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not
authorized by the Congress.
Sec. 8002. During the current fiscal year, provisions of
law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment
of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall not
apply to personnel of the Department of Defense: Provided,
That salary increases granted to direct and indirect hire
foreign national employees of the Department of Defense
funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess of the
percentage increase authorized by law for civilian employees
of the Department of Defense whose pay is computed under the
provisions of section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, or
at a rate in excess of the percentage increase provided by
the appropriate host nation to its own employees, whichever
is higher: Provided further, That this section shall not
apply to Department of Defense foreign service national
employees serving at United States diplomatic missions whose
pay is set by the Department of State under the Foreign
Service Act of 1980.
Sec. 8003. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 8004. No more than 20 per centum of the appropriations
in this Act which are limited for obligation during a single
fiscal year shall be obligated during the last two months of
such fiscal year: Provided, That this section shall not apply
to obligations for support of active duty training of reserve
components or summer camp training of the Reserve Officers'
Training Corps.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense
that such action is necessary in the national interest, he
may, with the approval of the Office of Management and
Budget, transfer not to exceed $2,000,000,000 of working
capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made
available in this Act to the Department of Defense for
military functions (except military construction) between
such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to
be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and
for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to
which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer
may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on
unforeseen military requirements, than those for which
originally appropriated and in no case where the item for
which funds are requested has been denied by Congress:
Provided further, That only for valid Ship Cost Adjustments
related to the Shipbuilding and Construction, Navy
Appropriation such authority to transfer may be used to
transfer funds made available in this or any previous
Department of Defense Appropriations Act subject to the same
conditions required elsewhere in this paragraph: Provided
further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify the
Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this
authority or any other authority in this Act.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 8006. During the current fiscal year, cash balances in
working capital funds of the Department of Defense
established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United
States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are
necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from
such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such
funds and the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense'' and
``Operation and Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such
amounts as may be determined by the Secretary of Defense,
with the approval of the Office of Management and Budget,
except that such transfers may not be made unless the
Secretary of Defense has notified the Congress of the
proposed transfer. Except in amounts equal to the amounts
appropriated to working capital funds in this Act, no
obligations may be made against a working capital fund to
procure or increase the value of war reserve material
inventory, unless the Secretary of Defense has notified the
Congress prior to any such obligation.
Sec. 8007. Using funds available by this Act or any other
Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to a
determination under section 2690 of title 10, United States
Code, may implement cost-effective agreements for required
heating facility modernization in the Kaiserslautern Military
Community in the Federal Republic of Germany: Provided, That
in the City of Kaiserslautern such agreements will include
the use of United States anthracite as the base load energy
for municipal district heat to the United States Defense
installations: Provided further, That at Landstuhl Army
Regional Medical Center and Ramstein Air Base, furnished heat
may be obtained from private, regional or municipal services,
if provisions are included for the consideration of United
States coal as an energy source.
Sec. 8008. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used
to initiate a special access program without prior
notification 30 calendar days in session in advance to the
congressional defense committees.
Sec. 8009. None of the funds contained in this Act
available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services shall be available for payments to
physicians and other non-institutional health care providers
in excess of the amounts allowed in fiscal year 1995 for
similar services, except that: (a) for services for which the
Secretary of Defense determines an increase is justified by
economic circumstances, the allowable amounts may be
increased in accordance with appropriate economic index data
similar to that used pursuant to title XVIII of the Social
Security Act; and (b) for services the Secretary determines
are overpriced based on allowable payments under title XVIII
of the Social Security Act, the allowable amounts shall be
reduced by not more than 15 percent (except that the
reduction may be waived if the Secretary determines that it
would impair adequate access to health care services for
beneficiaries). The Secretary shall solicit public comment
prior to promulgating regulations to implement this section.
Such regulations shall include a limitation, similar to that
used under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, on the
extent to which a provider may bill a beneficiary an actual
charge in excess of the allowable amount.
Sec. 8010. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
available to initiate (1) a multiyear contract that employs
economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000
in any one year of the contract or that includes an unfunded
contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000, or (2) a
contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear
contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in
excess of $20,000,000 in any one year, unless the
congressional defense committees have been notified at least
thirty days in advance of the proposed contract award:
Provided, That no part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available to initiate a multiyear contract for
which the economic order quantity advance procurement is not
funded at least to the limits of the Government's liability:
Provided further, That no part of any appropriation contained
in this Act shall be available to initiate multiyear
procurement contracts for any systems or component thereof if
the value of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000
unless specifically provided in this Act: Provided further,
That no multiyear procurement contract can be terminated
without 10-day prior notification to the congressional
defense committees: Provided further, That the execution of
multiyear authority shall require the use of a present value
analysis to determine lowest cost compared to an annual
procurement.
Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used for
multiyear procurement contracts as follows:
E-2C aircraft;
AV-8B aircraft remanufacture;
T-45 aircraft.

[[Page H 8633]]

Sec. 8011. Within the funds appropriated for the operation
and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby
appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United
States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs
under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds
may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance
costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to
authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10,
United States Code, and these obligations shall be reported
to Congress on September 30 of each year: Provided, That
funds available for operation and maintenance shall be
available for providing humanitarian and similar assistance
by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust Territories of the
Pacific Islands and freely associated states of Micronesia,
pursuant to the Compact of Free Association as authorized by
Public Law 99-239.
Sec. 8012. (a) During fiscal year 1996, the civilian
personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on
the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such
personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any
constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the
number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day
of such fiscal year.
(b) The fiscal year 1997 budget request for the Department
of Defense as well as all justification material and other
documentation supporting the fiscal year 1997 Department of
Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the
Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were
effective with regard to fiscal year 1997.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to
military (civilian) technicians.
Sec. 8013. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds made available by this Act shall be used by the
Department of Defense to exceed, outside the fifty United
States, its territories, and the District of Columbia,
125,000 civilian workyears: Provided, That workyears shall be
applied as defined in the Federal Personnel Manual: Provided
further, That workyears expended in dependent student hiring
programs for disadvantaged youths shall not be included in
this workyear limitation.
Sec. 8014. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to
influence congressional action on any legislation or
appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
Sec. 8015. None of the funds appropriated for the
Department of Defense during the current fiscal year and
hereafter shall be obligated for the pay of any individual
who is initially employed after the date of enactment of this
Act as a technician in the administration and training of the
Army Reserve and the maintenance and repair of supplies
issued to the Army Reserve unless such individual is also a
military member of the Army Reserve troop program unit that
he or she is employed to support. Those technicians employed
by the Army Reserve in areas other than Army Reserve troop
program units need only be members of the Selected Reserve.
Sec. 8016. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during the current fiscal year and hereafter the Secretaries
of the Army and Air Force may authorize the retention in an
active status until age sixty of any person who would
otherwise be removed from an active status and who is
employed as a National Guard or Reserve technician in a
position in which active status in a reserve component of the
Army or Air Force is required as a condition of that
employment.
Sec. 8017. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be used to make contributions to the Department of
Defense Education Benefits Fund pursuant to section 2006(g)
of title 10, United States Code, representing the normal cost
for future benefits under section 1415(c) of title 38, United
States Code, for any member of the armed services who, on or
after the date of enactment of this Act--
(1) enlists in the armed services for a period of active
duty of less than three years; or
(2) receives an enlistment bonus under section 308a or 308f
of title 37, United States Code,

nor shall any amounts representing the normal cost of such
future benefits be transferred from the Fund by the Secretary
of the Treasury to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pursuant
to section 2006(d) of title 10, United States Code; nor shall
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pay such benefits to any
such member: Provided, That, in the case of a member covered
by clause (1), these limitations shall not apply to members
in combat arms skills or to members who enlist in the armed
services on or after July 1, 1989, under a program continued
or established by the Secretary of Defense in fiscal year
1991 to test the cost-effective use of special recruiting
incentives involving not more than nineteen noncombat arms
skills approved in advance by the Secretary of Defense:
Provided further, That this subsection applies only to active
components of the Army.
(b) None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be
available for the basic pay and allowances of any member of
the Army participating as a full-time student and receiving
benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from the
Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when time spent
as a full-time student is credited toward completion of a
service commitment: Provided, That this subsection shall not
apply to those members who have reenlisted with this option
prior to October 1, 1987: Provided further, That this
subsection applies only to active components of the Army.
Sec. 8018. Funds appropriated for the Department of Defense
during the current fiscal year and hereafter shall be
available for the payment of not more than 75 percent of the
charges of a postsecondary educational institution for the
tuition or expenses of an officer in the Ready Reserve of the
Army National Guard or Army Reserve for education or training
during his off-duty periods, except that no part of the
charges may be paid unless the officer agrees to remain a
member of the Ready Reserve for at least four years after
completion of such training or education.
Sec. 8019. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available to convert to contractor performance an activity
or function of the Department of Defense that, on or after
the date of enactment of this Act, is performed by more than
ten Department of Defense civilian employees until a most
efficient and cost-effective organization analysis is
completed on such activity or function and certification of
the analysis is made to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate: Provided, That
this section shall not apply to a commercial or industrial
type function of the Department of Defense that: (1) is
included on the procurement list established pursuant to
section 2 of the Act of June 25, 1938 (41 U.S.C. 47),
popularly referred to as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act; (2) is
planned to be converted to performance by a qualified
nonprofit agency for the blind or by a qualified nonprofit
agency for other severely handicapped individuals in
accordance with that Act; or (3) is planned to be converted
to performance by a qualified firm under 51 percent Native
American ownership.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 8020. Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for
the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be
transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act
solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege
Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to
section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2301 note),
as amended, under the authority of this provision or any
other transfer authority contained in this Act.
Sec. 8021. For the purposes of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) as
amended by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119) and by the
Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508), the term
program, project, and activity for appropriations contained
in this Act shall be defined as the most specific level of
budget items identified in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1996, the accompanying House and Senate
Committee reports, the conference report and accompanying
joint explanatory statement of the managers of the Committee
of Conference, the related classified annexes and reports,
and the P-1 and R-1 budget justification documents as
subsequently modified by Congressional action: Provided, That
the following exception to the above definition shall apply:
For the Military Personnel and the Operation and
Maintenance accounts, the term ``program, project, and
activity'' is defined as the appropriations accounts
contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act:
Provided further, That at the time the President submits his
budget for fiscal year 1997, the Department of Defense shall
transmit to the congressional defense committees budget
justification document to be known as the ``O-1'' which shall
identify, at the budget activity, activity group, and
subactivity group level, the amounts requested by the
President to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for
operation and maintenance in any budget request, or amended
budget request, for fiscal year 1997.
Sec. 8022. Of the funds appropriated to the Army,
$147,900,000 shall be available only for the Reserve
Component Automation System (RCAS): Provided, That none of
these funds can be expended--
(1) except as approved by the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau;
(2) unless RCAS resource management functions are performed
by the National Guard Bureau;
(3) to pay the salary of an RCAS program manager who has
not been selected and approved by the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau and chartered by the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau and the Secretary of the Army;
(4) unless the Program Manager (PM) charter makes the PM
accountable to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and
fully defines his authority, responsibility, reporting
channels and organizational structure;
(5) to pay the salaries of individuals assigned to the RCAS
program management office unless such organization is
comprised of personnel chosen jointly by the Chiefs of the
National Guard Bureau and the Army Reserve;
(6) to pay contracted costs for the acquisition of RCAS
unless RCAS is an integrated system consisting of software,
hardware, and communications equipment and unless such
contract continues to preclude the use of Government
furnished equipment, operating systems, and executive
applications software; and
(7) unless RCAS performs its own classified information
processing:

[[Page H 8634]]

Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, none of the funds appropriated shall be available for
procurement of computers for the Army Reserve Component which
are used to network or expand the capabilities of existing or
future information systems or duplicate functions to be
provided under the RCAS contract unless the procurement meets
the following criteria: (A) at sites scheduled to receive
RCAS equipment prior to September 30, 1995, RCAS ADP
equipment may be procured and only in the numbers and types
allocated by the RCAS program to each site; and at sites
scheduled to receive RCAS equipment after September 30, 1995,
RCAS ADP equipment or ADP equipment from a list of RCAS
compatible equipment approved by the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau or his designee, may be procured and only in the
numbers and types allocated by the RCAS program to each site;
(B) the requesting organizational element has insufficient
ADP equipment to perform administrative functions but not to
exceed the number of work stations determined by the RCAS
program for that site; (C) replacement equipment will not
exceed the minimum required to maintain the reliability of
existing capabilities; (D) replacement will be justified on
the basis of cost and feasibility of repairs and maintenance
of present ADP equipment as compared to the cost of
replacement; and (E) the procurement under this policy must
be approved by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau or his
designee, provided that the procurement is a one for one
replacement action of existing equipment.
Sec. 8023. None of the funds in this Act may be available
for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its
departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and
mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the
anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United
States from components which are substantially manufactured
in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this
section manufactured will include cutting, heat treating,
quality control, testing of chain and welding (including the
forging and shot blasting process): Provided further, That
for the purpose of this section substantially all of the
components of anchor and mooring chain shall be considered to
be produced or manufactured in the United States if the
aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured in
the United States exceeds the aggregate cost of the
components produced or manufactured outside the United
States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service
responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on
a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the
Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be
made in order to acquire capability for national security
purposes.
(transfer of funds)

Sec. 8024. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Department of Defense may transfer prior year, unobligated
balances and funds appropriated in this Act to the operation
and maintenance appropriations for the purpose of providing
military technician and Department of Defense medical
personnel pay and medical programs (including CHAMPUS) the
same exemption from sequestration set forth in the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177) as amended by the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-
119) and by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (Public Law
101-508) as that granted the other military personnel
accounts: Provided, That any transfer made pursuant to any
use of the authority provided by this provision shall be
limited so that the amounts reprogrammed to the operation and
maintenance appropriations do not exceed the amounts
sequestered under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) as amended by the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation
Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119) and by the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508): Provided
further, That the authority to make transfers pursuant to
this section is in addition to the authority to make
transfers under other provisions of this Act: Provided
further, That the Secretary of Defense may proceed with such
transfer after notifying the Appropriations Committees of the
House of Representatives and the Senate twenty calendar days
in session before any such transfer of funds under this
provision.
Sec. 8025. None of the funds appropriated by this Act
available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) shall be available for the
reimbursement of any health care provider for inpatient
mental health service for care received when a patient is
referred to a provider of inpatient mental health care or
residential treatment care by a medical or health care
professional having an economic interest in the facility to
which the patient is referred: Provided, That this limitation
does not apply in the case of inpatient mental health
services provided under the program for the handicapped under
subsection (d) of section 1079 of title 10, United States
Code, provided as partial hospital care, or provided pursuant
to a waiver authorized by the Secretary of Defense because of
medical or psychological circumstances of the patient that
are confirmed by a health professional who is not a Federal
employee after a review, pursuant to rules prescribed by the
Secretary, which takes into account the appropriate level of
care for the patient, the intensity of services required by
the patient, and the availability of that care.
Sec. 8026. Funds available in this Act may be used to
provide transportation for the next-of-kin of individuals who
have been prisoners of war or missing in action from the
Vietnam era to an annual meeting in the United States, under
such regulations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.
Sec. 8027. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during the current fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense may,
by Executive Agreement, establish with host nation
governments in NATO member states a separate account into
which such residual value amounts negotiated in the return of
United States military installations in NATO member states
may be deposited, in the currency of the host nation, in lieu
of direct monetary transfers to the United States Treasury:
Provided, That such credits may be utilized only for the
construction of facilities to support United States military
forces in that host nation, or such real property maintenance
and base operating costs that are currently executed through
monetary transfers to such host nations: Provided further,
That the Department of Defense's budget submission for fiscal
year 1997 shall identify such sums anticipated in residual
value settlements, and identify such construction, real
property maintenance or base operating costs that shall be
funded by the host nation through such credits: Provided
further, That all military construction projects to be
executed from such accounts must be previously approved in a
prior Act of Congress: Provided further, That each such
Executive Agreement with a NATO member host nation shall be
reported to the congressional defense committees thirty days
prior to the conclusion and endorsement of any such agreement
established under this provision.
Sec. 8028. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense in this Act shall be used to demilitarize or dispose
of more than 310,784 unserviceable M1 Garand rifles and M1
Carbines.
Sec. 8029. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to
pay more than 50 percent of an amount paid to any person
under section 308 of title 37, United States Code, in a lump
sum.
Sec. 8030. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used by the Department of Defense to assign a supervisor's
title or grade when the number of people he or she supervises
is considered as a basis for this determination: Provided,
That savings that result from this provision are represented
as such in future budget proposals.
Sec. 8031. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available for payments under the Department of Defense
contract with the Louisiana State University Medical Center
involving the use of cats for Brain Missile Wound Research,
and the Department of Defense shall not make payments under
such contract from funds obligated prior to the date of the
enactment of this Act, except as necessary for costs incurred
by the contractor prior to the enactment of this Act:
Provided, That funds necessary for the care of animals
covered by this contract are allowed.
Sec. 8032. None of the funds provided in this Act or any
other Act shall be available to conduct bone trauma research
at any Army Research Laboratory until the Secretary of the
Army certifies that the synthetic compound to be used in the
experiments is of such a type that its use will result in a
significant medical finding, the research has military
application, the research will be conducted in accordance
with the standards set by an animal care and use committee,
and the research does not duplicate research already
conducted by a manufacturer or any other research
organization.
Sec. 8033. No more than $50,000 of the funds appropriated
or made available in this Act shall be used for any single
relocation of an organization, unit, activity or function of
the Department of Defense into or within the National Capital
Region: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive
this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate that such a relocation is required
in the best interest of the Government.
Sec. 8034. During the current fiscal year, funds
appropriated or otherwise available for any Federal agency,
the Congress, the judicial branch, or the District of
Columbia may be used for the pay, allowances, and benefits of
an employee as defined by section 2105 of title 5 or an
individual employed by the government of the District of
Columbia, permanent or temporary indefinite, who--
(1) is a member of a Reserve component of the Armed Forces,
as described in section 261 of title 10, or the National
Guard, as described in section 101 of title 32;
(2) performs, for the purpose of providing military aid to
enforce the law or providing assistance to civil authorities
in the protection or saving of life or property or prevention
of injury--
(A) Federal service under section 331, 332, 333, 3500, or
8500 of title 10, or other provision of law, as applicable,
or
(B) full-time military service for his State, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a territory
of the United States; and
(3) requests and is granted--

[[Page H 8635]]

(A) leave under the authority of this section; or
(B) annual leave, which may be granted without regard to
the provisions of sections 5519 and 6323(b) of title 5, if
such employee is otherwise entitled to such annual leave:

Provided, That any employee who requests leave under
subsection (3)(A) for service described in subsection (2) of
this section is entitled to such leave, subject to the
provisions of this section and of the last sentence of
section 6323(b) of title 5, and such leave shall be
considered leave under section 6323(b) of title 5.
Sec. 8035. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available to perform any cost study pursuant to the
provisions of OMB Circular A-76 if the study being performed
exceeds a period of twenty-four months after initiation of
such study with respect to a single function activity or
forty-eight months after initiation of such study for a
multi-function activity.
Sec. 8036. Funds appropriated by this Act for the American
Forces Information Service shall not be used for any national
or international political or psychological activities.
Sec. 8037. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
regulation, the Secretary of Defense may adjust wage rates
for civilian employees hired for certain health care
occupations as authorized for the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs by section 7455 of title 38, United States Code.
Sec. 8038. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act shall be used to reduce or disestablish the
operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the
Air Force Reserve, if such action would reduce the WC-130
Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in
this Act.
Sec. 8039. (a) Of the funds for the procurement of supplies
or services appropriated by this Act, qualified nonprofit
agencies for the blind or other severely handicapped shall be
afforded the maximum practicable opportunity to participate
as subcontractors and suppliers in the performance of
contracts let by the Department of Defense.
(b) During the current fiscal year, a business concern
which has negotiated with a military service or defense
agency a subcontracting plan for the participation by small
business concerns pursuant to section 8(d) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) shall be given credit toward
meeting that subcontracting goal for any purchases made from
qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely
handicapped.
(c) For the purpose of this section, the phrase ``qualified
nonprofit agency for the blind or other severely
handicapped'' means a nonprofit agency for the blind or other
severely handicapped that has been approved by the Committee
for the Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely
Handicapped under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
48).
Sec. 8040. During the current fiscal year, net receipts
pursuant to collections from third party payers pursuant to
section 1095 of title 10, United States Code, shall be made
available to the local facility of the uniformed services
responsible for the collections and shall be over and above
the facility's direct budget amount.
Sec. 8041. During the current fiscal year, the Department
of Defense is authorized to incur obligations of not to
exceed $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section
2350j(c) of title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of
receipt of contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait,
under that section: Provided, That, upon receipt, such
contributions from the Government of Kuwait shall be credited
to the appropriation or fund which incurred such obligations.
Sec. 8042. (a) Funds appropriated in this Act to finance
activities of Department of Defense (DoD) Federally Funded
Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) may not be
obligated or expended for a FFRDC if a member of its Board of
Directors or Trustees simultaneously serves on the Board of
Directors or Trustees of a profit-making company under
contract to the Department of Defense unless the FFRDC has a
DoD approved conflict of interest policy for its members.
(b) Limitation on Compensation.--No employee or executive
officer of a defense FFRDC may be compensated at a rate
exceeding Executive Schedule Level I by that FFRDC.
(c) Limitation on Compensation.--No member of a Board of
Directors, Trustees, Overseers, Advisory Group, Special
Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or any similar entity of a
defense FFRDC may be compensated for his or her services as a
member of such entity except under the same conditions, and
to the same extent, as members of the Defense Science Board:
Provided, That a member of any such entity shall be allowed
travel expenses and per diem as authorized under the Federal
Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in the performance of
membership duties.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the
amounts available to the Department of Defense during fiscal
year 1996, not more than $1,252,650,000 may be obligated for
financing activities of defense FFRDCs: Provided, That in
addition to any other reductions required by this section,
the total amounts appropriated in titles II, III, and IV of
this Act to finance activities carried out by defense FFRDCs
and other entities providing consulting services, studies and
analyses, systems engineering and technical assistance, and
technical engineering and management support are hereby
reduced by $90,097,000.
Sec. 8043. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy or armor
steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or
property under the control of the Department of Defense which
were not melted and rolled in the United States or Canada:
Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall apply to
any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and Steel
Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or armor
steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
military department responsible for the procurement may waive
this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions
shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the
date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 8044. None of the unobligated balances available in
the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund during the
current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to finance
any grant or contract to conduct research, development, test
and evaluation activities for the development or production
of advanced materials, unless amounts for such purposes are
specifically appropriated in a subsequent appropriations Act.
Sec. 8045. For the purposes of this Act, the term
``congressional defense committees'' means the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the subcommittee on National Security of the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on National
Security of the House of Representatives, and the Committee
on Armed Services of the Senate.
Sec. 8046. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during the current fiscal year, the Department of Defense may
acquire the modification, depot maintenance and repair of
aircraft, vehicles and vessels as well as the production of
components and other Defense-related articles, through
competition between Department of Defense depot maintenance
activities and private firms: Provided, That the Senior
Acquisition Executive of the military department or defense
agency concerned, with power of delegation, shall certify
that successful bids include comparable estimates of all
direct and indirect costs for both public and private bids:
Provided further, That Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-76 shall not apply to competitions conducted under
this section.
Sec. 8047. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after
consultation with the United States Trade Representative,
determines that a foreign country which is party to an
agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms
of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of
products produced in the United States that are covered by
the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the
Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with
respect to such types of products produced in that foreign
country.
(2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any
reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding,
between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to
which the Secretary of Defense has prospectively waived the
Buy American Act for certain products in that country.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from
foreign entities in fiscal year 1996. Such report shall
separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the
Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any agreement
described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement Act of
1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international agreement
to which the United States is a party.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American
Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act making
appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other
purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
Sec. 8048. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Defense may, when he considers it in the best
interest of the United States, cancel any part of an
indebtedness, up to $2,500, that is or was owed to the United
States by a member or former member of a uniformed service if
such indebtedness, as determined by the Secretary, was
incurred in connection with Operation Desert Shield/Storm:
Provided, That the amount of an indebtedness previously paid
by a member or former member and cancelled under this section
shall be refunded to the member.
Sec. 8049. Appropriations contained in this Act that remain
available at the end of the current fiscal year as a result
of energy cost savings realized by the Department of Defense
shall remain available for obligation for the next fiscal
year to the extent, and for the purposes, provided in section
2865 of title 10, United States Code.
Sec. 8050. During the current fiscal year and thereafter,
voluntary separation incentives payable under 10 U.S.C. 1175
may be paid in such amounts as are necessary from the assets
of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Fund established by
section 1175(h)(1).

[[Page H 8636]]

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 8051. Amounts deposited during the current fiscal year
to the special account established under 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2)
and to the special account established under 10 U.S.C.
2667(d)(1) are appropriated and shall be available until
transferred by the Secretary of Defense to current applicable
appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense under
the terms and conditions specified by 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2) (A)
and (B) and 10 U.S.C. 2667(d)(1)(B), to be merged with and to
be available for the same time period and the same purposes
as the appropriation to which transferred.
Sec. 8052. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
available to the Department of Defense may be used to
reimburse a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces
who is not otherwise entitled to travel and transportation
allowances and who occupies transient government housing
while performing active duty for training or inactive duty
training: Provided, That such members may be provided lodging
in kind if transient government quarters are unavailable as
if the member was entitled to such allowances under
subsection (a) of section 404 of title 37, United States
Code: Provided further, That if lodging in kind is provided,
any authorized service charge or cost of such lodging may be
paid directly from funds appropriated for operation and
maintenance of the reserve component of the member concerned.
Sec. 8053. None of the funds available in this Act may be
used to support in any manner, including travel or other
related expenses, the ``Tailhook Association''.
Sec. 8054. The President shall include with each budget for
a fiscal year submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code, materials that shall identify
clearly and separately the amounts requested in the budget
for appropriation for that fiscal year for salaries and
expenses related to administrative activities of the
Department of Defense, the military departments, and the
Defense Agencies.
Sec. 8055. During the current fiscal year, amounts
contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military
Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section
2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991
(Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available
until expended for the payments specified by section
2921(c)(2) of that Act.
Sec. 8056. During the current fiscal year and thereafter,
annual payments granted under the provisions of section 4416
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993 (Public Law 102-428; 106 Stat. 2714) shall be made from
appropriations which are available for the pay of reserve
component personnel.
Sec. 8057. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act, not more than $119,200,000 shall be
available for payment of the operating costs of NATO
Headquarters.
Sec. 8058. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
which are available to the Department of Defense for
operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items
having an investment item unit cost of not more than $50,000.
Sec. 8059. During the current fiscal year and thereafter,
appropriations available for the pay and allowances of active
duty members of the Armed Forces shall be available to pay
the retired pay which is payable pursuant to section 4403 of
Public Law 102-484 (10 U.S.C. 1293 note) under the terms and
conditions provided in section 4403.
Sec. 8060. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the
appropriations or funds available to the Defense Business
Operations Fund shall be used for the purchase of an
investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new inventory
item for sale or anticipated sale during the current fiscal
year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers of the Defense
Business Operations Fund if such an item would not have been
chargeable to the Defense Business Operations Fund during
fiscal year 1994 and if the purchase of such an investment
item would be chargeable during the current fiscal year to
appropriations made to the Department of Defense for
procurement.
(b) The fiscal year 1997 budget request for the Department
of Defense as well as all justification material and other
documentation supporting the fiscal year 1997 Department of
Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the
Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified
as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation
contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed
fiscal year 1997 procurement appropriation and not in the
supply management business area or any other area or category
of the Defense Business Operations Fund.
Sec. 8061. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
available for use by a Military Department to modify an
aircraft, weapon, ship or other item of equipment, that the
Military Department concerned plans to retire or otherwise
dispose of within five years after completion of the
modification: Provided, That this prohibition shall not apply
to safety modifications: Provided further, That this
prohibition may be waived by the Secretary of a Military
Department if the Secretary determines it is in the best
national security interest of the United States to provide
such waiver and so notifies the congressional defense
committees in writing.
Sec. 8062. No part of the funds in this Act shall be
available to prepare or present a request to the Committees
on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for
higher priority items, based on unforeseen military
requirements, than those for which originally appropriated
and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is
requested has been denied by the Congress.
Sec. 8063. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available for payment of the compensation of personnel
assigned to or serving in the National Foreign Intelligence
Program in excess of 92 percent of such personnel actually
assigned to or serving in the National Foreign Intelligence
Program on September 30, 1992: Provided, That in making any
reduction in the number of such personnel that may be
required pursuant to this section, the percentage of
reductions to Senior Intelligence Service positions shall be
equal to or exceed the percentage of reductions to non-Senior
Intelligence Service positions: Provided further, That in
making any reduction in the number of such personnel that may
be required pursuant to this section, the percentage of
reductions to positions in the National Capital Region shall
be equal to or exceed the percentage of reductions to
positions outside of the National Capital Region.
Sec. 8064. None of the funds provided by this Act may be
used to pay the salaries of any person or persons who
authorize the transfer of obligated and deobligated
appropriations into the Reserve for Contingencies of the
Central Intelligence Agency.
Sec. 8065. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for
programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain
available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year,
except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for
Contingencies, which shall remain available until September
30, 1997.
Sec. 8066. The classified Annex prepared by the Committee
on Appropriations to accompany the report on the Department
of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996 is hereby incorporated
into this Act: Provided, That the amounts specified in the
classified Annex are not in addition to amounts appropriated
by other provisions of this Act: Provided further, That the
President shall provide for appropriate distribution of the
classified Annex, or of appropriate portions of the
classified Annex, within the executive branch of the
Government.
Sec. 8067. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence
Agency may be used for the design, development, and
deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program
intelligence communications and intelligence information
systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands,
and the component commands.
Sec. 8068. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds appropriated in this Act for the High
Performance Computing Modernization Program shall be made
available only for the acquisition and sustainment of
operations, including maintenance of the supercomputing and
related networking capability at (1) the DOD Science and
Technology sites under the cognizance of the DDR&E, (2) the
DOD Test and Evaluation centers under the Director, Test and
Evaluation, OUSD (A&T), and (3) the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization: Provided, That the contracts, contract
modifications, or contract options are awarded competitively
solely upon the requirements of the users.
Sec. 8069. Amounts collected for the use of the facilities
of the National Science Center for Communications and
Electronics during the current fiscal year pursuant to
section 1459(g) of the Department of Defense Authorization
Act, 1986 and deposited to the special account established
under subsection 1459(g)(2) of that Act are appropriated and
shall be available until expended for the operation and
maintenance of the Center as provided for in subsection
1459(g)(2).
Sec. 8070. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may
be used to fill the commander's position at any military
medical facility with a health care professional unless the
prospective candidate can demonstrate professional
administrative skills.
Sec. 8071. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act
may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense
unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the
Buy American Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term
``Buy American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An
Act making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office
Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for
other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et
seq.).
(b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person
has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing
a ``Made in America'' inscription to any product sold in or
shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the
Secretary shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f
of title 10, United States Code, whether the person should be
debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
Sec. 8072. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available for a contract for studies, analyses, or
consulting services entered into without competition on the
basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the
activity responsible for the procurement determines--
(1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one
source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work,
or

[[Page H 8637]]

(2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an
unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or
technological promise, represents the product of original
thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source, or
(3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of
unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a
specific concern, or to insure that a new product or idea of
a specific concern is given financial support:

Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to contracts
in an amount of less than $25,000, contracts related to
improvements of equipment that is in development or
production, or contracts as to which a civilian official of
the Department of Defense, who has been confirmed by the
Senate, determines that the award of such contract is in the
interest of the national defense.
Sec. 8073. Funds appropriated by this Act for intelligence
activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the
Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security
Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 1996 until the
enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal
year 1996.
Sec. 8074. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act
may be obligated for design, development, acquisition, or
operation of more than 47 Titan IV expendable launch
vehicles, or for satellite mission-model planning for a Titan
IV requirement beyond 47 vehicles.
(b) $115,226,000 made available in this Act for Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, may only be
obligated for development of a new family of medium-lift and
heavy-lift expendable launch vehicles evolved from existing
technologies.
Sec. 8075. No funds available to the Department of Defense
in this Act may be used to establish additional field
operating agencies of any element of the Department during
fiscal year 1996, except for field operating agencies funded
within the National Foreign Intelligence Program.
Sec. 8076. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
resident classes entering the war colleges after September
30, 1996, the Department of Defense shall require that not
less than 20 percent of the total of United States military
students at each war college shall be from military
departments other than the hosting military department:
Provided, That each military department will recognize the
attendance at a sister military department war college as the
equivalent of attendance at its own war college for promotion
and advancement of personnel.
Sec. 8077. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
obligated for payment on new contracts on which allowable
costs charged to the government include payments for
individual compensation at a rate in excess of $250,000 per
year.
Sec. 8078. None of the funds available in this Act may be
used to reduce the authorized positions for military
(civilian) technicians of the Army National Guard, the Air
National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the
purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian
personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military
(civilian) technicians, unless such reductions are a direct
result of a reduction in military force structure.
Sec. 8079. During the current fiscal year, funds
appropriated in this Act are available to compensate members
of the National Guard for duty performed pursuant to a plan
submitted by a Governor of a State and approved by the
Secretary of Defense under section 112 of title 32, United
States Code: Provided, That during the performance of such
duty, the members of the National Guard shall be under State
command and control: Provided further, That such duty shall
be treated as full-time National Guard duty for purposes of
sections 12602 (a)(2) and (b)(2) of title 10, United States
Code.
Sec. 8080. Funds appropriated in this Act for operation and
maintenance of the Military Departments, Unified and
Specified Commands and Defense Agencies shall be available
for reimbursement of pay, allowances and other expenses which
would otherwise be incurred against appropriations for the
National Guard and Reserve when members of the National Guard
and Reserve provide intelligence support to Unified Commands,
Defense Agencies and Joint Intelligence Activities, including
the activities and programs included within the General
Defense Intelligence Program and the Consolidated Cryptologic
Program: Provided, That nothing in this section authorizes
deviation from established Reserve and National Guard
personnel and training procedures.
Sec. 8081. (a) No project for the construction of any
facility, or improvement to any facility, having an estimated
Federal cost in excess of $750,000, may be undertaken in any
fiscal year unless specifically identified as a separate item
in the President's annual fiscal year budget request or
otherwise specifically authorized and appropriated if such
facility or improvement would be used primarily by personnel
of the intelligence community.
(b) As used in this section, the term ``intelligence
community'' has the same meaning given that term in section
3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
401a(4)).
Sec. 8082. The Secretary of Defense, from within funds
provided in this Act, may obligate not to exceed $75,000 to
fulfill Department of Defense obligations under the
Educational Loan Repayment Programs for State-sponsored
student loan programs not covered under title IV, part B or E
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (title 20 U.S.C. 1071-
1087).
Sec. 8083. All refunds or other amounts collected in the
administration of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of
the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) shall be credited to current
year appropriations.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 8084. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may
be transferred to or obligated from the Pentagon Reservation
Maintenance Revolving Fund, unless the Secretary of Defense
certifies that the total cost for the planning design,
construction and installation of equipment for the renovation
of the Pentagon Reservation will not exceed $1,218,000,000.
Sec. 8085. (a) None of the funds available to the
Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug
interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to
any other department or agency of the United States except as
specifically provided in an appropriations law.
(b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence
Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
drug activities may be transferred to any other department or
agency of the United States except as specifically provided
in an appropriations law.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 8086. Appropriations available in this Act under the
heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' for
increasing energy and water efficiency in Federal buildings
may, during their period of availability, be transferred to
other appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense
for projects related to increasing energy and water
efficiency, to be merged with and to be available for the
same general purposes, and for the same time period, as the
appropriation or fund to which transferred.
Sec. 8087. Funds in the amount of $61,300,000 received
during fiscal year 1996 by the Department of the Air Force
pursuant to the ``Memorandum of Agreement between the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the United
States Air Force on Titan IV/Centaur Launch Support for the
Cassini Mission,'' signed September 8, 1994, and September
23, 1994, and Attachments A, B and C to the Memorandum, shall
be merged with appropriations available for research,
development, test and evaluation and procurement for fiscal
year 1996, and shall be available for the same time period as
the appropriation with which merged, and shall be available
for obligation only for those Titan IV vehicles and Titan IV-
related activities under contract as of the date of enactment
of this Act, as well as on the follow-on launch services and
program sustaining support contract to be awarded in fiscal
year 1996.

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 8088. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act, $44,000,000 is hereby
appropriated to the Department of Defense and shall be
available only for transfer to the United States Coast Guard
for activities relating to national security.
Sec. 8089. The total amount appropriated in title II, III,
and IV of this Act is hereby reduced by $30,000,000 for
savings through improved management of contractor automatic
data processing costs charged through indirect rates on
Department of Defense acquisition contracts.
Sec. 8090. (a) None of the funds appropriated in title III
of this Act may be obligated by the Department of Defense for
acquisition or advance procurement of any system or end item
using incremental funding.
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``incremental
funding'' has the meaning provided in paragraph (3) of
section 114(f) of title 10, United States Code, as added by
section 1007 of H.R. 1530 of the One Hundred Fourth Congress
(the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996), as passed by the House of Representatives on June 15,
1995.
(c) This section does not apply to an obligation that is
classified as an advance procurement for a system or end item
that is to be procured on a full funding basis.
Sec. 8091. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the
United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to
the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes that is not available from United States
manufacturers.
Sec. 8092. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to
the Department of the Army may be obligated for procurement
of 120mm mortars or 120mm mortar ammunition manufactured
outside of the United States.
Sec. 8093. The Department of Defense shall release all
funds appropriated and available for the HAVE GAZE program to
the Department of the Air Force for obligation under existing
contractual arrangements.
Sec. 8094. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, (a)
funds available to the Navy in the Operation and Maintenance
appropriation for refueling overhauls and defueling
inactivations of nuclear-powered warships are available to
transport the shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel to the
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory needed for examination
and storage to avoid threats to the national security; and
(b) the Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized to
immediately

[[Page H 8638]]
commence and accomplish such transportation: Provided, That the
Secretary of Defense shall make the determination as to what
shipments are required for that purpose and shall ensure that
the shipments are made in accordance with the practices and
requirements applied to previous container shipments of naval
spent fuel to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory:
Provided further, That the authority in this section shall
expire on September 30, 1996 or upon the vacation or stay of
the current or any subsequent injunction issued by the United
States District Court for the District of Idaho which enjoins
such shipments, whichever occurs first: Provided further,
That the authority in this section may not be used unless the
Secretary of Defense certifies in writing to the
congressional defense committees that a good-faith agreement
between the State of Idaho and the United States Government
was attempted but could not be reached concerning interim
shipments of spent nuclear fuel enjoined by any such
injunction based on national security reasons.
Sec. 8095. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available to lease or charter a vessel on a long-term
basis used to transport fuel or oil for the Department of
Defense in those instances where the leases involve the
construction of new ships unless the Secretary of Defense
requires that the vessel be constructed in the United States
with a double hull under the long term lease or charter
authority provided in section 2401 note of title 10, United
States Code: Provided, That this limitation shall not apply
to contracts in force on the date of enactment of this Act:
Provided further, That by 1997 at least 20 percent of annual
leases and charters must be for ships of new construction:
Provided further, That the Military Sealift Command shall
plan to achieve the goal of eliminating single hull ship
leases by the year 2015.
Sec. 8096. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act to the Department of the Navy shall be used to
develop or procure main propulsion engines for the LPD-17
class of ships unless such equipment is powered by a diesel
engine manufactured in the United States by a domestically
operated entity: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may
waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying
in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes or there exists a significant cost or
quality difference.
Sec. 8097. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act to the Department of the Navy shall be used to
develop or procure an emergency generator set for the New
Attack Submarine unless such equipment is powered by a diesel
engine manufactured in the United States by a domestically
operated entity: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may
waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying
in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes or there exists a significant cost or
quality difference.
Sec. 8098. The Army shall use George Air Force Base as the
interim airhead for the National Training Center at Fort
Irwin until Barstow-Daggett reaches Initial Operational
Capability as the permanent airhead: Provided, That within
funds appropriated for ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'' in
this Act, not less than $2,000,000 shall be available only to
operate the National Training Center's rotational airhead at
the now closed George Air Force Base: Provided further, That
the Secretary of the Army shall provide the congressional
defense committees with a report assessing the Army's
compliance with the terms of this provision not later than
March 31, 1996: Provided further, That not later than April
30, 1996, the Department of the Army shall complete planning
and design of the Barstow-Daggett airfield as the permanent
airhead in support of training rotations at the National
Training Center.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 8099. During the current fiscal year, the Secretary of
Defense may carry out transfers of funds of not to exceed
$200,000,000, as provided in section 127a(c) of title 10,
United States Code, as amended by section 1003 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (H.R.
1530): Provided, That the transfer authority provided in this
paragraph is in addition to any transfer authority contained
elsewhere in this Act.
Sec. 8100. The sum of $77,500,000 appropriated in title I
and the sum of $564,300,000 appropriated in title II for
additional incremental costs associated with the operations
of the Department of Defense designated, as of June 1, 1995,
as Operation Southern Watch and Operation Provide Comfort--
(1) shall not be obligated or expended before the date on
which the budget of the President for fiscal year 1997 is
transmitted to Congress; and
(2) may be obligated or expended for such incremental costs
on or after such date only if that budget specifically sets
forth amounts proposed for fiscal year 1997 for each of those
operations.
Sec. 8101. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit, on a
quarterly basis, a report to the congressional defense
committees setting forth all costs (including incremental
costs) incurred by the Department of Defense during the
preceding quarter in implementing or supporting resolutions
of the United Nations Security Council, including any such
resolution calling for international sanctions, international
peacekeeping operations, and humanitarian missions undertaken
by the Department of Defense. The quarterly report shall
include an aggregate of all such Department of Defense costs
by operation or mission.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall detail in the quarterly
reports all efforts made to seek credit against past United
Nations expenditures and all efforts made to seek
compensation from the United Nations for costs incurred by
the Department of Defense in implementing and supporting
United Nations activities.
Sec. 8102. (a) Limitation on Participation in Certain
Operations.--None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense for the current fiscal year shall be obligated or
expended for costs incurred by United States Armed Forces
units serving in an operation described in subsection (b)
unless the President engages in consultations with the
bipartisan leadership of Congress and the congressional
committees named in subsection (e) regarding such operation
in accordance with subsection (c)(1).
(b) Covered Operations.--(1) This section applies to the
following:
(A) Any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement
operation that is not underway as of the date of the
enactment of this Act and that is authorized by the Security
Council of the United Nations under chapter VI or VII of the
Charter of the United Nations.
(B) Any other international peacekeeping or peace-
enforcement operation that is not underway as of the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(C) Any deployment after the date of the enactment of this
Act of United States ground forces in the territory of the
former Yugoslavia above the level of such forces so deployed
as of such date of enactment, other than a deployment
involving fewer than 100 personnel.
(D) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any international
humanitarian assistance operation.
(2) This section does not apply with respect to--
(A) an international humanitarian assistance operation
carried out in response to a disaster; or
(B) any other international humanitarian assistance
operation if the President reports to Congress that the
estimated cost of such operation is less than $50,000,000.
(c) Consultation With Congress.--(1) Consultations under
subsection (a) in the case of any operation shall be
initiated before the initial deployment of United States
Armed Forces units to participate in the operation and,
whenever possible, at least 15 days before such deployment.
However, if the President determines that the national
security so requires, the President may delay the initiation
of such consultations until after such initial deployment,
but in no case may such consultations be initiated later than
48 hours after such deployment.
(2) Such consultations shall include discussion of all of
the following:
(A) The goals of the operation and the mission of any
United States Armed Forces units involved in the operation.
(B) The United States interests that will be served by the
operation.
(C) The estimated cost of the operation.
(D) The strategy by which the President proposes to fund
the operation, including possible supplemental appropriations
or payments from international organizations, foreign
countries, or other donors.
(E) The extent of involvement of armed forces and other
contributions of personnel from other nations.
(F) The anticipated duration and scope of the operation.
(3) Such consultations shall continue on a periodic basis
throughout the period of the deployment.
(d) Requests for Emergency Supplemental Appropriations.--
Whenever there is a deployment of United States Armed Forces
to perform an international humanitarian, peacekeeping, or
peace-enforcement operation, the President should seek
emergency supplemental appropriations to meet the incremental
costs to the Department of Defense of that deployment not
later than 90 days after the date on which such deployment
commences.
(e) Committees To Be Included in Consultations.--The
committees referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) The congressional defense committees.
(2) The Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and
the Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives.
(3) The Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House
of Representatives.
Sec. 8103. (a) Limitation on Transfer of Defense Articles
and Services.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
none of

[[Page H 8639]]
the funds available to the Department of Defense for the current fiscal
year may be obligated or expended to transfer to another
nation or an international organization any defense articles
or services (other than intelligence services) for use in the
activities described in subsection (b) unless the
congressional defense committees are notified 15 days in
advance of such transfer.
(b) Covered Activities.--(1) This section applies to--
(A) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement
operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of
the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United
Nations Security Council resolution; and
(B) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
enforcement, humanitarian, or disaster relief operation.
(c) Required Notice.--A notice under subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services
to be transferred.
(2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or
services to be transferred.
(3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or
supplies--
(A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of
all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve
components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be
transferred have been met; and
(B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be
transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the
President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
Sec. 8104. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense shall be obligated or expended for the purposes of
deploying United States Armed Forces to participate in the
implementation of a negotiated peace settlement in Bosnia-
Herzegovina, unless such deployment is previously authorized
by law.
Sec. 8105. Except as expressly authorized by law or
provided for specifically in an Act making appropriations for
the Department of Defense, none of the funds available to the
Department of Defense after December 1, 1995, for the current
fiscal year or any fiscal year hereafter shall be available
to support or otherwise provide funds for any program or
activity (other than an intelligence program or activity) for
which another Federal department or agency has primary
responsibility or which is a type of program or activity for
which funds are customarily provided in appropriations
available to another Federal department or agency. The
limitation in the preceding sentence does not apply with
respect to funds made available to another department or
agency in accordance with section 1535 of title 31, United
States Code.
Sec. 8106. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense shall be obligated or expended to make a financial
contribution to the United Nations for the cost of an United
Nations peacekeeping activity (whether pursuant to assessment
or a voluntary contribution) or for payment of any United
States arrearage to the United Nations.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title VIII?

amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 94, after
line 3, insert the following new section:
Sec. 8107. None of the funds made available in this Act
under the heading ``Procurement of Ammunition, Army'' may be
obligated or expanded for the procurement of munitions unless
such acquisition fully complies with the Competition in
Contracting Act.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have cleared this amendment
with both the majority and minority leaders on the committee. My
amendment saves taxpayers' dollars, supports open and fair competition
and codifies existing law. It is noncontroversial.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Florida,
chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we have examined
this amendment and discussed it with the gentleman and believe that it
does promote competition and think it is a positive addition to this
bill and we accept the amendment.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we accept the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VIII?
{time} 1500

amendment no. 47 offered by ms. woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 47 Offered by Ms. Woolsey. Page 94, after
line 3, insert the following new section:
Sec. 8107. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may
be used to modify any Trident I submarine to enable that
submarine to be deployed with Trident II (D-5) missiles.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, once again I am here to get this body to
do something that the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against
Government Waste, the Council for a Livable World, and Members on both
sides of the aisle believe should have been long ago: Stop wasting
money on the Trident nuclear missiles.
At a time when this Congress is making cuts in education, student
aid, and Medicare, I am outraged that we are even talking about
investing $3 billion over the next 7 years in this cold war relic,
especially when the Navy didn't even request it.
Backfitting 4 Trident submarines that now carry C-4 missiles with
expensive D-5 missiles would give us a total of 14 subs carrying D-5
missiles; 4 more than the Navy originally planned. My amendment does
not do away with D-5 missiles; it simply cancels the backfit, limits
the Navy to 10 subs with D-5 missiles, and saves taxpayers $3 billion
over 7 years. That is a reasonable request.
It is a reasonable request because the D-5 missile was designed to
hit targets in the Soviet Union. Well, guess what folks. The Soviet
Union no longer exists. If 10 D-5 subs were enough to stop the Soviet
threat during the height of the cold war, then 10 D-5 subs are
certainly enough to stop today's smaller threat from the former Soviet
Union.
And if my colleagues are concerned about threats from rogue nations
like North Korea and Iran, my answer is simple: One Trident submarine,
loaded with 24 D-5 missiles, would be more than enough to stop a threat
from these nations.
And let us not get into a debate about this amendment damaging
military readiness. If military readiness is a problem, it is not
because we have not pumped enough money into the military budget.
Rather, it is because the Pentagon has some seriously misplaced
spending priorities.
With soldiers on food stamps, we cannot afford to be wasting billions
of precious dollars on this wasteful and expendable program. But really
when it comes down to it, the Woolsey amendment is not about spending
priorities within the military; it is about spending priorities,
period.
We cannot balance the budget on the backs of children, on the backs
of working families, and on the backs of seniors, while allowing the
Pentagon's budget to balloon.
Let us hold this Congress and the Pentagon accountable. Let us make
it clear that spending an additional $3 billion on the Trident force is
a wasteful and ill-advised mistake. It is time to put any further
spending on this cold war relic where it belongs: in the history books.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly point out that the President of
the United States, through the Nuclear Posture Review, endorsed the
need for the Trident D-2 backfit. The D-5 missile has improved military
effectiveness and reliability, greater range, and twice the design life
of the older C-4 missile which it replaces.
Trident submarines are expected to last at least 30 years, and in
today's world they might have to last twice that long. The C-4 missile
will definitely not have that much of a shelf life. C-4 production
actually terminated in 1987 and the C-4 will have to be replaced.
The most cost-effective approach is to continue procurement of the D-
5 missile and use some of them to backfit the older Trident submarines.
However, the strongest argument I can make against this amendment is
that there is no money in this bill for

[[Page H 8640]]
the D-5 submarine backfit and hopefully the gentlewoman would withdraw
the amendment.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Woolsey
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]
makes an awful lot of sense. The question is how much is enough and are
we buying things based on a threat-based analysis? I think everybody
knows we have enough D-5 missiles to more than deter any threat from
anywhere at any time. We have got a lock on all of this.
The real question is why do we keep buying more and more and more? Or
why are planning for more, when really, if we were going to invest
wisely, I think we would fall back and figure out what might be coming
in the future, if some enemy in the future moves forward. But we have a
lock on this technology. We know how to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I just think the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Woolsey] makes a tremendous amount of sense with this and I
congratulate the gentlewoman.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the issue of
there being no money in the bill for the backfit. The Navy is currently
planning how to accomplish the backfit and funds in this bill will be
used for this planning.
My amendment says that this planning will not occur and will forgo
the backfit. It makes an important policy statement and it sets
precedent for future appropriations bills that will contain funds
expressly for the backfit. Even though there is no money right now for
backfit, there is certainly money in the bill for planning that
backfit.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Woolsey
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, last year the House voted on this issue and basically
took the position that we should support the backfit.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my distinguished friend
and colleague that the Nuclear Posture Review, which was done by the
Department of Defense, does, in fact, call for the backfit of 4 Trident
submarines with the D-5 missile. That is the administration's position
and that is the Navy's position.
So, I would just say this: That we have entered into a series of arms
control agreements which call upon us to make major reduction in our
land-based missiles, to reduce our bomber force to a level that I am
frankly troubled by, and the basic deterrent that we have left is on
our Trident submarines, some of which are based on the east coast in
Georgia and others on the west coast in Washington State, from my home
area.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to stay with their position
of last year, to oppose the Woolsey amendment, and to continue to
support the Trident submarine program and the D-5 backfit.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VIII?

amendment offered by mr. young of florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: On page 55, line
8, after the word ``committees'' insert the following: ``,
and the Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate''.
On page 87, line 10, after the word ``committees'' insert
the following: ``, the Committee on International Relations
of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate''.
On page 91, line 21, after the word ``committees'' insert
the following: ``, and the Committee on International
Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate''.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment. We
have, in this bill, asked the Department of Defense to provide certain
reports to the defense committees of the House and the Senate. This
amendment would include as recipients of those reports the Committee on
International Relations in the House and the Committee on Foreign
Relations in the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, it is strictly a technical amendment.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we applaud the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Young] and have no problems with the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by Mr. MURTHA

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Murtha: On page 94, after line 3,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 8107. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
implement any change to the computation of military retired
pay as required by law in fiscal year 1995 for military
personnel who entered the Service before September 8, 1980.

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment takes care of a problem
which for 2 years the Committee on Appropriations has worked out. There
was a perception it saved a lot of money by changing the formula for
retirement of the military. We find that it has not saved a lot of
money. We are offering an amendment to rectify that problem.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we certainly concur with this
amendment and urge that it be adopted.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VIII?

Amendment No. 82 Offered by Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. 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. Sanders: Page 94, after line 3,
add the following new section:
Sec. 8107. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to pay
a contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense
for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an employee
when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
(1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of
the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
(2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated
with a business combination.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon is spending $31 million in
taxpayer dollars for corporate bonuses for the top executives of just
one major defense contractor, the Lockheed-Martin Corp. With so much
concern about the Federal deficit and Government waste, I would hope
that every Member of the Congress supports the amendment that I am
offering which would prohibit this practice.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, earlier this year Pentagon officials
agreed to use $31 million in taxpayer money to pay a third of the $92
million in bonuses that top corporate executives of the Martin-
Marrietta Corp. and the Lockheed Corp. granted themselves for staging
the largest merger of defense contractors in American history, and that
was the creation of the Lockheed-Martin Corp. with $11.6 billion in
annual military sales and $23 billion in total annual sales.
Just 2 months after this development took place, the same corporate
executives announced plans to fire 19,000 American workers and to close
12 factories and laboratories across the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, this seems to me to be an example of corporate welfare
at its worst and I would hope that the Members would support my
amendment, which would prohibit this golden parachute, as well as any
which take place.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from

[[Page H 8641]]
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for the work he has done on this amendment and
certainly, speaking for this side of the aisle, we would be glad to
accept the amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the
remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and we are
happy to accept this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont. [Mr. Sanders].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment no. 85 offered by mrs. schroeder

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 85 offered by Mrs. Schroeder: Page 94, after
line 3, insert the following:
Sec. 8107. (a) Limitation on the Use of Federal Funds by
Contractors for Political Advocacy.--None of the funds made
available by this Act may be used by any Federal contractor
for an activity when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that the
activity is any of the following:
(1) Carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to
influence Federal, State, or local legislation or agency
action, including any of the following:
(A) Monetary or in-kind contributions, endorsements,
publicity, or similar activity.
(B) Any attempt to influence any legislation or agency
action through an attempt to affect the opinions of the
general public or any segment thereof, including any
communication between the contractor and an employee of the
contractor to directly encourage such employee to urge
persons other than employees to engage in such an attempt.
(C) Any attempt to influence any legislation or agency
action through communication with any member or employee of a
legislative body or agency, or with any government official
or employee who may participate in the formulation of the
legislation or agency action, including any communication
between the contractor and an employee of the contractor to
directly encourage such employee to engage in such an attempt
or to urge persons other than employees to engage in such an
attempt.
(2) Participating or intervening in (including the
publishing or distributing of statements) any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for
public office, including monetary or in-kind contributions,
endorsements, publicity, or similar activity.
(3) Participating in any judicial litigation or agency
proceeding (including as an amicus curiae) in which agents or
instrumentalities of Federal, State, or local governments are
parties, other than litigation in which the contractor or
potential contractor is a defendant appearing in its own
behalf; is defending its tax-exempt status; or is challenging
a government decision or action directed specifically at the
powers, rights, or duties of that contractor or potential
contractor.
(4) Allocating, disbursing, or contributing any funds or
in-kind support to any individual, entity, or organization
whose expenditures for political advocacy for the previous
Federal fiscal year exceeded 15 percent of its total
expenditures for that Federal fiscal year.
(b) Limitation on Use of Federal Funds To Award
Contracts.--None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to award a contract when it is made known to the
Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such
funds that--
(1) the expenditures of the potential contractor (other
than an individual person) for activities described in
subsection (a) for any one of the previous five Federal
fiscal years (excluding any fiscal year before 1996)
exceeding the sum of--
(A) the first $20,000,000 of the difference between the
potential contractor's total expenditures made in the fiscal
year and the total amount of Federal contracts and grants it
was awarded in that fiscal year, multiplied by .05; and
(B) the remainder of the difference calculated in
subparagraph (A), multiplied by .01;
(2) the potential contractor has used funds from any
Federal contract to purchase or secure any goods or services
(including dues and membership fees) from any other
individual, entity, or organization whose expenditures for
activities described in subsection (a) for fiscal year 1995
exceeded 15 percent of its total expenditures for that
Federal fiscal year; or
(3) the potential contractor has used funds from any
Federal contract for a purpose (other than to purchase or
secure goods or services) that was not specifically permitted
by Congress in the law authorizing the contract.
(c) Exceptions.--The activities described in subsection (a)
do not include an activity when it is made known to the
Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such
funds that the activity is any of the following:
(1) Making available the results of nonpartisan analysis,
study, research, or debate.
(2) Providing technical advice or assistance (where such
advice would otherwise constitute the influencing of
legislation or agency action) to a government body or to a
committee or other subdivision thereof in response to a
written request by such body or subdivision, as the case may
be.
(3) Communications between a contractor and its employees
with respect to legislation, proposed legislation, agency
action, or proposed agency action of direct interest to the
contractor and such employees, other than communications
described in subparagraph (C).
(4) Any communication with a governmental official or
employee, other than--
(A) a communication with a member or employee of a
legislative body or agency (where such communication would
otherwise constitute the influencing of legislation or agency
action); or
(B) a communication the principal purpose of which is to
influence legislation or agency action.
(5) Official communication by employees of State or local
governments, or by organizations whose membership consists
exclusively of State or local governments.

(Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues can just
accept this amendment. I think it is fairly simple. Most of the Members
of the body voted on an amendment very similar to this recently and
that was when we were debating the Labor HHS appropriations. The
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] offered an amendment that said
that any recipient of a Federal grant was not allowed to lobby with
their non-Federal funds. Non-Federal funds.
So as my colleagues may know from many of the articles that have
appeared since in the Wall Street Journal and other places, they talk
about how the Girl Scouts, the Red Cross, all sorts of groups such as
that, will not be able to lobby here because they got Federal funds,
even with non-Federal funds.
OK. That makes sense.
Now, I voted against that, because I felt that that was really
infringing their free speech.
What my amendment does today is say, ``Okay, guys, I lost. If we are
going to do that to nonprofits, then we certainly ought to be doing it
to profits.''
My amendment says what is good for the goose is good for the gander,
or what is good for a nonprofit ought to be able to be good for a
profit.
What this amendment says is that companies that receive high amounts
of money for defense contracts and Government contracts that are in
for-profit businesses also cannot use their non-Government money to
lobby.
Now, let us be real serious about this here. Who do you think, who do
you think has the most influence here: the Girl Scouts or some of the
big contractors? Now, we have shut the Girl Scouts out, and we have
shut the YMCA out, and we have shut the Boy Scouts out, and we have
shut out all of those groups because we realize the terrific power they
were wielding in this body, and I think if you really believe that,
then you had better look at what is going on with defense firms.
I got from several different groups who monitor this the amount of
money defense firms are handing out. It is a phenomenal amount of
money. I woke up this morning, there were TV ads on television for the
B-2 bomber. That looks like lobbying to me. Imagine, it would be in
Washington where policymakers are getting up and watching the news. We
see ads in newspapers, we see people coming around to offices, we see
pens, we see all sorts of things. These are the real megalobbyists.
They not only have that, they have something the nonprofits do not
have, they also have political action committees.
So yesterday we were having a big debate on this floor about how we
ought to have real reform, and if we are going to have real reform and
we are going to insist that nonprofits are going to be gagged and not
be able to talk or be able to spend their money to consult Congress, we
certainly ought to adopt this amendment which just says do to the
profits what you do to the nonprofits; do to the defense contractors
and other people who have Government contracts what you did to the
nonprofit people who got grants from the Government.

[[Page H 8642]]

That, I think, is something that if we do not do it, it is going to
be awfully hard to explain back home, and I think when we see more and
more groups getting concerned about whether we are making decisions
here based on the threat or whether we are making decisions here based
on PAC contributions or lobbying or nonprofit groups exerting excess
powers such as Senator Simpson in the Senate has talked about, or
whatever, we have got to do this equally and evenhandedly, or otherwise
it looks like we are being disingenuous.
So while I would like to have everybody have free speech, since this
body overruled my position and decided we are not going to have free
speech for nonprofits, that these very, very dangerous groups out there
that have gotten these grants must not be able to lobby even with their
own money, I certainly think if we are that afraid of the Sierra Club
and if we are that afraid of the Children's Defense Fund, we ought to
be afraid of big contractors who live off of this Federal money, and
some make as much as almost $23 billion a year. We certainly ought to
say they should not be able to use their non-Government funds to lobby.
So I would hope this could be agreed to, and I would hope that we
could get on to it since the body has agreed to exactly the same thing
in other appropriation bills for nonprofits, and so I hope everybody
can concede this very early.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
I do so only because I am not exactly sure what the effect would be.
We were just provided this amendment today. We are trying to determine
what effect it would have on title 10 of the United States Code, Armed
Forces, which deals with procurement and contracting and things of this
type. I am not really sure what effect that would have, and I am just
wondering if the gentlewoman would be willing to defer a decision on
this amendment for maybe 15 or 20 minutes to give us a chance to try to
finish our research on it.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I appreciate your open-mindedness on this. And, yes,
we have researched that.
But if we could ask unanimous consent to withhold further debate on
this for 15 minutes, would that be adequate?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. That would be helpful.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman can withdraw the amendment by unanimous
consent and then reoffer it once the research is done. Otherwise the
debate would have to continue until such time as everybody was talked
out and the Chair would then put the question on the amendment.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, my
concern about that is because of the very stringent time limits we are
under, I might not be able to get back up and get it offered. If there
is some assurance that I can get recognized again before the time clock
goes off.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would have no problem with some assurance
there. I would like to point out, these laws dealing with this subject
really are legislation and not appropriations. The gentlewoman is on
the authorizing committee. That might have been the place to have
addressed this issue.
But we began this bill in late July, early August. Here it is now
September. This amendment was just filed. So we would like a little
time to make sure exactly what the effect would be.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman would yield further, I understand
what the gentleman is saying. As you know, the prior Istook amendment
on nonprofits came out of the Committee on Appropriations. None of us
thought we should be doing this in the authorizing committee, which is
why I did not offer it. But since this body adopted it on the Labor,
HHS and Education amendments, it seemed to me only fair we do the same
kind of thing, and our research makes it look like it is an absolute
mirror image. It just takes the Istook amendment, which basically I am
opposed to, and I would be opposed to shutting off speech, but we did
it. It seems to me only fair then that we do it for the for-profits.
That is all I am trying to do as we proceed here.
So the reason we did not do it in the other forum was that we had no
idea appropriations was going to start legislating on appropriation
bills. So we have no choice but to do the same.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The difference is the nonprofits that we are
talking about do not have all of this law that relate to them, where
the Defense Department does, and I just need to check and make sure
that we have something that is not going to be flying up against
another law.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman will yield further, again, what I
understand where we are is we have about 15 minutes to look at this.
Then we can reoffer it, and, hopefully, you can accept it at that
point.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Before we do that, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] was on his feet, and I think he wanted to
engage in this conversation. We might want to do that before we
withdraw the amendment.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. I just wanted to add my request to withdraw and see if we
could not work something out on it. It is a complicated subject. It is
a comprehensive amendment, which certainly in committee I opposed the
Istook amendment because of my concern for that issue, and I would ask
the gentlewoman to withdraw the amendment and see if we cannot work
something out.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, based upon the agreement of both of the
gentlemen, I certainly will be more than happy to withdraw it under the
condition I can reoffer it, hopefully, in a few minutes where we can
work something out.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Colorado?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn, without prejudice.

amendment offered by mr. callahan

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 73.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Callahan: Page 94, after line 3,
insert the following new section:

SEC. 8107. LIMITATION ON PROCUREMENT OF CERTAIN VESSEL
PROPELLERS AND SHIP PROPULSION SHAFTING.

(a) Subject to subsection (c), none of the funds made
available by this Act may be used to procure vessel
propellers six feet in diameter or greater when it is made
known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds that such propellers are not manufactured
in the United States and do not incorporate castings that are
poured and finished only in the United States.
(b) Subject to subsection (c), none of the funds made
available by this Act may be used to procure ship propulsion
shafting when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that such ship
propulsion shafting is not manufactured in the United States.
(c) The limitation in subsection (a) or subsection (b), as
the case may be, does not apply when it is made known to the
Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such
funds that adequate domestic supplies of propellers described
in subsection (a) or of ship propulsion shafting are not
available to meet Department of Defense requirements on a
timely basis.

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to insert
a buy American clause that has been in existence for a great number of
years. This buy American clause had to do with propellers, and it was
in the 1994 appropriations bill and authorization bill, and for some
reason it was left out of the 1995-96 appropriation bill.
But I think it is very important that we recognize that this is an
opportunity to spend money in the United States, an opportunity to
create jobs here in the United States.
We have a letter from the Department of the Navy dated August 22,
1994, that certainly agrees with the purpose of this, because they fear
if we do not include this, that we are going to lose the capability
then, in the event of any emergency, to have the capability of
developing propellers greater than 6 feet in diameter.

[[Page H 8643]]

The 1994 future years plan called for the construction of 48 ships,
and the Navy's fiscal year 1996 plan calls for only the construction of
28 ships.
Since the Navy's report, one fully integrated ship propeller
manufacturer has gone out of business. Today there are only two fully
integrated propeller manufacturers left in the United States with the
capability to design, cast, and machine large monoblock propellers and
propeller blades for the U.S. Navy. The Navy's report specifically
states that these specialized technologies, processes, skills, and
facilities required for the manufacture, including both casting and
finish machining, for blades and monoblock propellers, is critical to
maintaining an adequate U.S. industrial base to support current and
future Navy requirements.
Without this law, the only Navy manufacturer of controllable pitch
propellers which go on the majority of our Navy's surface ships will be
forced to close its foundry and lay off many of its skilled workers.
The reason is simple: Foreign foundaries do not have to comply with the
same quality controls and environmental regulations imposed on them as
foundaries operating in the United States. That is the primary reason
for not being able to compete with foreign countries, is they do not
have to comply with the environmental regulations and the quality
control regulations that we have in this country.
If foreign companies want to manufacture propellers for the U.S.
Navy, they should come to the United States, open a manufacturing plant
and manufacture them and thus be eligible to help provide them.
I do not believe that our country, for the defense-critical systems,
should be dependent on foreign sources only. In a time of national
emergency, a foreign source may be unreliable or nonexistent.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy
regarding the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as a strong supporter of ``Buy America'' as well as
being a member whose district is home to the Navy's propeller shop and
foundry, I wish to clarify the intent of the gentleman's amendment.
I intend to support the gentleman's amendment, and urge my colleagues
to support it.
However, I would like the gentleman's assurance that it is not the
purpose of this amendment to weaken America's national security
position by eliminating or downsizing the propeller shop and foundry in
Philadelphia. I believe it would jeopardize our national security if we
were to sole-source propeller manufacturing in the private sector.
Mr. CALLAHAN. I am aware that the propeller shop and foundry have
been recognized as a core mission by the Navy. The Navy has stated that
it is critical to our national security that it remain operational in
support of the fleet.
This amendment would not challenge the Navy's position on the
Philadelphia propeller shop and foundry. Its intent is not to cause the
closure or downsizing in any way, shape or form of this great facility.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. I thank my colleague.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I speak in support of the gentleman's
amendment. I think he is raising a very important issue, but obviously,
as you know, the issue goes well beyond propellers.
During the last 2 fiscal years, the U.S. Defense Department has spent
at least $13 billion in American taxpayer money to buy goods and
services from foreign suppliers. My strong hope would be that the
gentleman and I and other people who are concerned about this issue can
work together to put an end to these practices.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]
has expired.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just make the point that in the
State of Vermont, in the last 3 years we have had four instances, four
instances where contracts were made with companies in Vermont but the
products were produced abroad. So the gentleman is beginning to touch
upon an issue of enormous consequence.
I had an amendment which I am going to withdraw, but I would hope
that we can work together to demand, wherever possible, and I think it
is a lot more possible than people think, that if we are going to spend
American taxpayers' money for defense equipment, for God's sakes, let
us have this work done in America and put American workers to work to
do that.

{time} 1530

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. TORKILDSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in
support of the Callahan amendment to require the components of vessels
for the Department of Defense to be manufactured in the United States.
This amendment makes very good sense. I will not elaborate with
details, but I applaud the gentleman for offering the amendment. This
is good for our national defense policy, it is good for American jobs.
I hope the Callahan amendment is adopted.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Callahan amendment to
require that components for vessels of the Department of Defense be
manufactured in the United States. This amendment makes good sense and
has largely been included in the House-passed Department of Defense
authorization for fiscal year 1996.
We all know that our defense readiness is in part dependent on our
industrial capability to manufacture defense systems. Without this
base, we could find ourselves totally dependent on foreign sources,
which could be unreliable and possibly nonexistent in time of national
emergency. This base, however, may be in jeopardy unless Congress
enacts this domestic source statute.
It is troubling when the Clinton administration uses international
armaments cooperation as a justification for not supporting American
defense manufacturers--the very manufacturers and employees who tax
dollars finance the DOD budget. Procuring U.S. manufactured products
for defense purposes advances our technological edge, and sustains the
U.S. industrial base and the employment base upon which our security
depends.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Callahan

Mr. CALLAHAN. 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. Callahan: Page 94, after line 3,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 8107. None of the funds provided in title II of this
Act for ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction'' may be
obligated or expended to finance housing for any individual
when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that such
individual was a member of the military forces of the Soviet
Union or that such individual is or was a member of the
military forces of the Russian Federation.

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, once again, and I have risen so many
times in the last several years talking about the very ill-conceived
program that the administration fostered in creating an ability of the
United States to fund houses for Russian soldiers.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with this.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Then, Mr. Chairman, I move adoption of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. neumann

Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

[[Page H 8644]]

Amendment offered by Mr. Neumann: Page 94, after line 3,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 8107. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense for the current fiscal year shall be obligated or
expended for costs incurred by the participation of United
States Armed Forces units in any operation in the territory
of the former Yugoslavia above the level of forces so
deployed as of date of enactment.

Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I have this recurring fear that I am going
to wake up one morning, turn on the news and find out the President----
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] is too
late in that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] has already
been recognized.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I have this recurring fear that I am going
to wake up one morning, turn on the news, and find out the President of
the United States has deployed 25,000 United States troops to the
Bosnian region. That is why I have an amendment to this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to require the
President to come to Congress for approval prior to the deployment of
United States troops in the Bosnian area.
My colleagues, make no mistake about the fact that there are plans on
the table currently to deploy 25,000 United States ground troops in the
Bosnian area.
On June 14, and I quote Secretary Perry; he said there are three
different possible ways, and I quote, ``There are three possible
contingencies in which we would have ground forces in Bosnia. There
are, No. 1, a peacekeeping operation to enforce a peacekeeping
settlement; No. 2, assisting NATO allies in the full withdrawal of the
U.N. Protection Force; and, No. 3, an emergency extraction of the U.N.
Protection Force.''
General Shali, who also testified at that same hearing, continued to
lay out how many troops might be deployed and for how long, and I quote
General Shali, same day:
``In the event of a request from the U.N. for assistance in
withdrawal of UNPROFOR troops the U.S. would commit about 25,000
American troops for approximately 22 weeks. In the event a situation
arises that requires an emergency extraction the NATO plan has a quick
response force using selected NATO forces that are in close proximity
to Bosnia. American participation and support of this plan are
essential.''
So, my colleagues see there are plans on the table currently for the
deployment of, the potential of deployment of, 25,000 United States
ground troops in the Bosnian area for a 22-week period of time. Again I
have to reiterate my concern that one morning I will turn on the news
and find out that 25,000 United States troops have, in fact, been
deployed to the Bosnian region. After that I will have to explain to my
constituents back home from Racine and Kenosha and Janesville-Beliot,
WI, why their sons and daughters have been sent to the Bosnian region.
Many of my colleagues believe that the President alone has the
authority to call the shots in this particular debate. However, our
Founding Fathers gave us the responsibility to participate in these
discussions, discussions that are literally life-and-death discussions
to many young people in uniform.
The Speaker of the House clearly laid out our role in this in a June
7 address to the House of Representatives when he said, and I quote:
``You want to cut off troops for Haiti or Somalia, or you want to cut
off troops in Bosnia. There is an easy way to do it. It is called the
power of the purse.''
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I have talked to the gentleman at great
length about this amendment, and I have a substitute to the amendment
which I think would satisfy certainly me and, I hope, would satisfy the
chairman, which would eliminate the extraction part of it from the
amendment that the gentleman is offering, because I think it is so
important that we have a commitment to the U.N., but, if I could offer
this amendment to the amendment, maybe we could continue the colloquy.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Murtha] for that purpose.

amendment offered by mr. murtha to the amendment offered by mr. neumann

Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] would have
to yield back his time in order for the gentleman from Pennsylvania to
offer his amendment.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Murtha to the amendment offered by
Mr. Neumann: At the end of the amendment add the following:
Provided, That this section shall not apply to emergency air
rescue operations, the airborne delivery of humanitarian
supplies, or the planning and execution of OPLAN 40104 to
extract UNPROFOR personnel.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment to the amendment.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, as I said before, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and myself have talked at great length, as has
the chairman of the committee.
This is a very delicate situation. We know that the White House,
whether it is Republican or Democrat, always opposes any kind of
stipulation restricting their ability to deploy troops. But I agree
with the gentleman that we have not only the right, but the obligation,
to insist on authorization before troops are deployed in a humanitarian
sense. I do not agree if it is a national security issue; I believe the
President does have the ability under the Constitution.
I would hope that the gentleman would accept this amendment. We could
take this to conference, and, if the chairman would accept this
amendment, then we would be able to then work out the final language
with the White House which would give us some leverage over what
happens in the future in these humanitarian deployments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Murtha].
Mr. Chairman, in the last several years the members of our
subcommittee have done everything we possibly could to keep this from
becoming an American war, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Neumann] has been a very strong advocate of that. However, we do have
to recognize, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania mentioned, our
commitment to the United Nations. I would mention in addition our very
strong treaty commitment to our NATO allies, and, if our NATO allies
become embroiled or endangered, we do have a commitment to come to
their rescue.
So, Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin is a good amendment. It makes the overall legislation
acceptable and certainly would, I believe, fit within the realm of the
Constitution, and so I would hope also that the gentleman would be
willing to accept this amendment and that we can just get on to the
next item.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, just so I fully understand what is being proposed here,
what we are saying is that the President would be required to come to
Congress to request funds prior to deploying troops for the
peacekeeping, for the enforcement of the peacekeeping settlement, as
described by Secretary Perry on June 14, but he would not have to come
to request funds to aid in the withdrawal of the French, British, the
Dutch, our allies, in the area.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

[[Page H 8645]]

Mr. MURTHA. That is correct, and the gentleman has to understand, of
course, obviously this does not go in effect until the bill is passed
and signed with the President, and we know there will have to be such
negotiation before it is finalized.
Mr. NEUMANN. I would be willing to accept the amendment, but I would
like to just add that I have some very strong reservations even in
those situations of deploying U.S. troops in the region.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. skelton

Mr. SKELTON. 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. Skelton: Page 94, after line 3,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 8107. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
obligated or expended for the provision by the United States
of military training for military forces of the Government of
Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I bring this issue to the floor of this
House because it involves the potential problem of American military
forces being where Americans do not want them to be.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that there are negotiations ongoing at the
present time, and I realize that this is a sensitive area of
discussion, though I am convinced that I am right, and I will use my
few moments on this floor to speak of this issue.
This amendment which I offered states that none of the funds provided
in this act may be obligated or expended for the provision by the
United States of military training for military forces of the
Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We all know that the measure
known as the Dole amendment passed. What the future of that will be
after a veto I cannot say. But I do know that the lifting of the
embargo would allow the Bosnia and Herzegovina Government to purchase
arms and undoubtedly purchase many of them from us. They are not
artillery oriented. They are infantry strong. The Bosnian Serbs are
artillery strong, and these weapons that the Moslem Government of
Bosnia and Herzegovina would purchase obviously would require people to
train them and teach them how to use them.
The question is who would that be? If they buy arms from us,
undoubtedly it would be members of our military force, and this is what
concerns me. These Bosnian and Herzegovinan Moslem soldiers will not be
coming to Fort Sill, OK, to be learning how to shoot artillery. It will
be done in country, in all probability trained by American soldiers.
This concerns me a great deal.
Now, Mr. Chairman, because there are sensitive negotiations going on
at this time, I raise this issue so that the Members of this body will
understand my deep concern. I say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that
the Balkans are not worth the life of one American soldier. This
lifting of the embargo, unless my amendment would prevail, it allows
Americans to go in and train, and if some of that does not work, they
might become advisers, and then we see Vietnam all over again.

{time} 1545

Because of the sensitivity of this and the negotiations at this time,
subject to the opportunity at a future date to offer this issue and
debate it fully, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment
because of the concerns for the sensitivity of the various negotiations
that are ongoing.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object,
and I do not intend to object, but I would like to point out to the
gentleman from Missouri, who is one of the House's leading experts in
the field of national defense and our national security, that the
subcommittee spent a lot of time reviewing this entire matter. I would
like to call to the attention of our colleagues the fact that the bill
before us has seven pages of restrictions and direction as to the
proper relationship between the President and the Congress on the issue
of deployments for peacekeeping or whatever other purpose.
I appreciate the gentleman withdrawing his amendment, because
actually the language in this bill is really very good and has been
very well thought out.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to our chairman of the
subcommittee, and by the way, the gentleman does an excellent job and I
appreciate it, and I am glad that the subcommittee reviewed this issue,
because I am deeply concerned that one thing will lead to another and
if there are not proper restrictions, if there is not proper language,
we could very well find ourselves involved where we do not intend
ourselves to be involved.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
amendment offered by mr. farr

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 7 to
title VIII.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Farr: Page 94, after line 3,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 8107. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or
any other Act for any fiscal year may be obligated or
expended in a total amount in excess of $6,700,000 for the
relocation, as a result of the report of the 1995 Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Commission, of the activity of
the Army Operational Test and Experimentation Command that is
located at Fort Hunter Liggett, California, as of July 1,
1995.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order
against this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this amendment with the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], and I understand it may not be in
order. However, I believe my amendment addresses an important issue,
and I would like to speak briefly on the matter before withdrawing the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment prevents the Army from wasting Federal tax
dollars to implement a recommendation by the BRAC Commission. The
recommendation would relocate the TEXCOM Experimentation Center from my
district to another facility. In their proposal to the BRAC, the Army
claimed this move would cost no more than $6.7 million. It is this
figure which BRAC used as a basis for its final recommendation to move
the facility. However, there are Army documents that show that it may
cost as much in fact as $13 million or more.
Mr. Chairman, let me quote from a recent U.S. Army Forces Command
document which states that ``Significant one-time costs are $17 million
for realignment. There are no savings to be realized in this action.''
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to hold the Army to its
word that the relocation of TEXCOM would be cost-effective and save
money important to the American taxpayers. If, as the Army claims, they
can move TEXCOM for only $6.7 million despite their own estimates, then
my amendment would change nothing. If, however, the Army attempts to
convince BRAC to move the facility by raising it one figure and then
raid the defense budget to meet the cost of the second higher figure,
then my amendment would prevent such a move. In short, my amendment
requires the Army to keep their word.
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, the BRAC Commission voted to realign an
experimentation unit from Fort Hunter Liggett to Fort Bliss, TX under
an assumption that it would save the

[[Page H 8646]]

American taxpayers close to $68 million over the next 20 years, we have
information that shows it will cost the taxpayers over $120 million to
realign this facility--a simple $188 million error above what the BRAC
Commissioners were led to believe.
The Commission was also led to believe that there would be a one time
cost of $6.7 million to realign this base when in actuality it will
cost closer to $43 million--over six times the projected one time cost.
I believe the realignment of this base weakens the best military
training facility available to our service members. I also believe that
the goal of saving taxpayer money by this realignment has not been met.
In addition, I believe the BRAC Commission did not have the best data
on which to base their decision. It is for these reasons I support this
amendment which would require the Army to realign Fort Hunter Liggett
for the amount of money the BRAC Commission based its decision.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Young] for his important help in this matter. I look
forward to working with him in the future on this problem.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
amendment offered by mrs. schroeder

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to title VIII.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inquire if this is the identical
amendment that was previously offered?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is the identical amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder: Page 94, after line 3,
insert the following:
Sec. 8107. (a) Limitation on the Use of Federal Funds by
Contractors for Political Advocacy.--None of the funds made
available by this Act may be used by any Federal contractor
for an activity when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that the
activity is any of the following:
(1) Carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to
influence Federal, State, or local legislation or agency
action, including any of the following:
(A) Monetary or in-kind contributions, endorsements,
publicity, or similar activity.
(B) Any attempt to influence any legislation or agency
action through an attempt to affect the opinions of the
general public or any segment thereof, including any
communication between the contractor and an employee of the
contractor to directly encourage such employee to urge
persons other than employees to engage in such an attempt.
(C) Any attempt to influence any legislation or agency
action through communication with any member or employee of a
legislative body or agency, or with any government official
or employee who may participate in the formulation of the
legislation or agency action, including any communication
between the contractor and an employee of the contractor to
directly encourage such employee to engage in such an attempt
or to urge persons other than employees to engage in such an
attempt.
(2) Participating or intervening in (including the
publishing or distributing of statements) any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for
public office, including monetary or in-kind contributions,
endorsements, publicity, or similar activity.
(3) Participating in any judicial litigation or agency
proceeding (including as an amicus curiae) in which agents or
instrumentalities of Federal, State, or local governments are
parties, other than litigation in which the contractor or
potential contractor is a defendant appearing in its own
behalf: is defending its tax-exempt status; or is challenging
a government decision or action directed specifically at the
powers, rights, or duties of that contractor or potential
contractor.
(4) Allocating, disbursing, or contributing any funds or
in-kind support to any individual, entity, or organization
whose expenditures for political advocacy for the previous
Federal fiscal year exceeded 15 percent of its total
expenditures for that Federal fiscal year.
(b) Limitation on Use of Federal Funds To Award
Contracts.--None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to award a contract when it is made known to the
Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such
funds that--
(1) the expenditures of the potential contractor (other
than an individual person) for activities described in
subsection (a) for any one of the previous five Federal
fiscal years (excluding any fiscal year before 1996) exceeded
the sum of--
(A) the first $20,000,000 of the difference between the
potential contractor's total expenditures made in the fiscal
year and the total amount of Federal contracts and grants it
was awarded in that fiscal year, multiplied by .05: and
(2) the potential contractor has used funds from any
Federal contract to purchase or secure any goods or services
(including dues and membership fees) from any other
individual, entity, or organization whose expenditures for
activities described in subsection (a) for fiscal year 1995
exceeded 15 percent of its total expenditures for that
Federal fiscal year; or
(3) the potential contractor has used funds from any
Federal contract for a purpose (other than to purchase or
secure goods or services) that was not specifically permitted
by Congress in the law authorizing the contract.
(c) Exceptions.--The activities described in subsection (a)
do not include an activity when it is made known to the
Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such
funds that the activity is any of the following:
(1) Making available the results of nonpartisan analysis,
study, research, or debate.
(2) Providing technical advice or assistance (where such
advice would otherwise constitute the influencing of
legislation or agency action) to a government body or to a
committee or other subdivision there in response to a written
request by such body or subdivision, as the case may be.
(3) Communications between a contractor and its employees
with respect to legislation, proposed legislation, agency
action, or proposed agency action of direct interest to the
contractor and such employees. Other than communications
described in subparagraph (c).
(4) Any communication with a governmental official or
employee, other than--
(A) a communication with a member or employee of a
legislative body or agency (where such communication would
otherwise constitute the influencing of legislation or agency
action); or
(B) a communication the principal purpose of which is to
influence legislation or agency action.
(5) Official communication by employees of State or local
governments, or by organizations whose membership consists
exclusively of State or local governments.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I think this is a
terribly important amendment in that it does for profits what we did to
nonprofits earlier this year in an appropriation bill.
Earlier this year, the Istook amendment was adopted by this House,
and what it did was say that groups, and there are over 460 of them,
such as the American Cancer Society, the American Red Cross, the
American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Baptist
Joint Committee, the United States Catholic Conference, the YMCA, the
YWCA, March of Dimes, Multiple Sclerosis, and on and on and on, would
not be allowed to use their own funds to lobby in the Congress. This
was called defunding of those groups, and that was thought to be very
fair. If that is fair, then it is certainly fair to say to profit
groups that are getting huge Government contracts that they also should
not be using their funds to lobby Congress in this manner.
Now, this amendment is written in exactly the same form as the Istook
amendment. It is a limitation on the use of Federal funds by
contractors for political advocacy, which means obviously coming to a
Federal contractor, having any activity which would be made known to a
Federal official or having the authority to obligate or approve or vote
for funds that would benefit them. I think this is terribly important,
and I certainly, certainly hope that we can in fairness do for the
profits what we did for the nonprofits, or I think a lot of people are
going to say wait a minute, wait a minute. If you are a nonprofit, do-
good group that is collecting it for dues, that is one thing. However,
if you are out there and you are making big profits, then you can do
whatever you want to with Federal money to lobby to get more of it. I
think that would really tilt the scales of justice. All of this is
about making sure the scales are even.
Mr. Chairman, I would say after we adopted the Istook amendment on
the nonprofits that we certainly should be adopting the Schroeder
amendment on the profit side in this area, and I hope we can get a
strong aye vote and move on.
Mr. Chairman, today I intend to offer an amendment that would crack
down on defense special interests. Recently, this chamber voted to
limit the ability of nonprofit organizations to lobby. The provision,
Representative Istook's amendment to the Labor, HHS, and Education
appropriations bill, limits the ability of recipients of Federal grants
to lobby with their nonFederal funds.

[[Page H 8647]]

While I voted against this limitation on the floor based on
constitutional grounds, I recognize the writing on the wall. The
majority of this Chamber believes that the ability of special interests
to peddle their influence should be seriously curtailed. Assuming that
this provision may become the law of the land, shouldn't it then
include the real special interests, that is, defense contractors?
Lockheed Martin is now the Nation's largest defense contractor. Their
total revenues amounted to $22,900,000,000, 62.9 percent of their
revenues were derived from defense-based revenues. In 1994, they
received $9 billion in prime contracts from the Department of Defense.
Another example? The political action committee for Northrop Grumman
and the major B-2 subcontractors contributed $150,850 in the first 6
months of 1995 to 115 Republican Members of the House. They organized
subcontractors to lobby their own State delegations. They organized and
paid for fact-finding trips for Members, and invited staff to their B-2
factory in California. The result? The House committees authorized and
appropriated $553 million and $493 million respectively for the first
installment of 20 new B-2 airplanes, which, according to the GAO, can't
tell the difference between a mountain and rain.
Which do you think peddles more influence, nonprofits or defense
contractors? It is not the YMCA, the Girl Scouts, the Sierra Club, or
the Children's Defense Fund. Influence in this town is bought and sold.
Logically, it follows that the most influence resides with the most
money--the contractors. What is good for the goose is good for the
gander. Support my effort to create equity between nonprofit and for-
profit lobbyists.
Campaign Contributions From Defense Firms

lockheed

1995-96--Democrats: $0, Republicans: $59,400 (37 Candidates),
Total: $59,400.
1993-94--Democrats: $338,210 (128 Candidates), Republicans:
$254,401 (120 Candidates), Total: $592,611.

mcdonnell douglas

1995-96--Democrats: $31,000 (37 Candidates), Republicans:
$57,749 (70 Candidates), Total: $88,749.
1993-94--Democrats: $160,350 (111 Candidates), Republicans:
$80,150 (72 Candidates), Total: $240,500.

northrop grumman

1993-94--Democrats: $94,555 (70 Candidates), Republicans:
$51,050 (46 Candidates), Total: $146,355.

litton industries

1995-96--Democrats: $9,500 (13 Candidates), Republicans:
$19,299 (26 Candidates), Total: $28,799.
1993-94--Democrats: $52,700 (40 Candidates), Republicans:
$60,400 (44 Candidates), Total: $113,100.

general dynamics

1995-96--Democrats: $33,050 (35 Candidates), Republicans:
$74,700 (56 Candidates), Total: $107,750.
1993-94--Democrats: $235,862 (106 Candidates), Republicans:
$149,250 (74 Candidates), Total: $385,112.

1994 Defense Firm Revenue from Sales to U.S. Government

Lockheed, $16.564 billion (Lockheed's revenue has also been
shown to be $14.4 billion).
McDonnell Douglas Corp., $9.2 billion.
Northrop Grumman, $5.41 billion.
Litton Industries, $3.16 billion.
General Dynamics, $2.862 billion.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I know it is a thoughtful amendment and on first
glance, it probably looks like a good idea. After all, what is good for
the goose is good for the gander if you are dealing with apples and
apples and oranges and oranges and that sort of thing. The fact is we
are not. We are dealing with apples and oranges. We are dealing with
two entirely different concepts.
One is a concept of direct agency, if you will. When the U.S.
Government contracts with a public charitable organization to provide
charitable services to the American people or abroad, in effect that
charitable organization becomes the agent of the U.S. Government. It is
taking U.S. taxpayers' money exclusively, subtracts an administration
surcharge which they do not pay taxes on, then dispenses what is left
to the eligible recipient, to the person who is in need, or to the
group of people that are in need.
That is legitimate. That is a legitimate function of Government, and
it is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged. The agency is
exclusively taking nonprofit money or money from the American taxpayer
to render service to a beneficiary, and any money that they divert for
their own costs should not be used to go back and lobby for more money
that is in effect not the purpose for which the money was intended in
the first place.
In other words, it is a diversion of money, Mr. Chairman. It is a
diversion from the purpose for which the money was intended. The money
was intended to go to the beneficiary, not to the agency to lobby for
more money. The agency is supposed to administer taxpayers' money for
some good, altruistic purpose.
In the case of the contractor, there is no agency. A defense
contractor is like any other contractor, and I do not know why the
gentlewoman stopped at defense contractors. I do not know why she did
not just go out and say any time the U.S. Government contracts with
anybody for a product or service for the Government's use you cannot
lobby.
But, if she did that, No. 1, is a denial of the privilege of the
first amendment, which is the right of speech under the Constitution of
the United States, to exercise their opportunity to speak to their
government, to the representatives of their choice, because in fact you
would be applying it to everybody in America. But since you have
limited it to just defense contractors or just individuals who provide
services or goods to the U.S. Government for the purposes of defense,
it is not everybody, it is just tens of millions of people.
Now, we already have title X of the United States Code for the Armed
Forces, which deals with all of the activities affecting contracts
between vendors in the defense arena and the U.S. Government. In fact,
this document here, title X, is something like 16,000 pages thick.
Well, I do not know how many pages. It is thick. I do not think anyone
will deny that.
That is a compilation of law accruing over the last 30 or 40 years.
The last time I checked, the gentlewoman from Colorado has been on the
Committee on National Security for the last 18 to 20 years, and so she
has played a vital role in affecting this document. I do not recall
that she has come forward and said that no contractor in the defense
arena cannot lobby, or can lobby the U.S. Government until now, but she
may have. But she is doing it now, and she is entitled to do it. But
let
us not get confused. Anybody who renders products or services to the
Government for profit is a private individual, is a private contractor,
is working for a living, making products, rendering services, just like
any private individual in this country, and does not depend for his
income exclusively on the American taxpayer is not a salaried employee
of the American taxpayer, is not an agent of the American taxpayer or
the American Government.

The other instance in which Mr. Istook offered the amendment earlier
in another bill is a system, or is an instance of agency versus
contract for hire.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Livingston was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with agency versus
contract for hire, contract for products. There is a real distinction,
and to say to anybody who is a contractor who deals with the Federal
Government that you cannot lobby is in essence, frankly, to deny their
rights under the first amendment of the Constitution of the United
States and totally flies in the face of any constitutional principles
that I know of.

{time} 1600

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me answer why it only
applies to defense contractors, and that is because of the scope of
this bill which I know the gentleman understands. I obviously cannot do
it for the universe because we are within this context only, so that is
easy.
Let me then go on and say I do not think that what we are trying to
say here is not that they cannot lobby, it is that they cannot use
Federal funds that they are getting for this to keep lobbying to get
more. It is like once you get in the trough, you just keep getting more
to feed more, which was what the concern was, I think, in the Istook
amendment when people were

[[Page H 8648]]

concerned that some of the agencies might use some of the Federal money
that was supposed to go to beneficiaries instead of lobbying to get
more.
Mr. Chairman, I think the analysis here is rather similar. We want
the analysis to be on a threat based by neutral people rather than
people who got a lot of money to manufacture something or make
something, then trying to find out more reasons and spend the same
money to spin more reasons to convince us we should buy even more for
them. That is a heck of a deal. That is a heck of a deal.
Those regulations you are showing, this person has been trying for 20
years to find ways to close that door. We have never been able to
really close that door very well. That is why I am saying doing the
mirror image of what we did to nonprofits makes an awful lot of sense
because maybe it will then be clear across the board and very fair.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Livingston was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would allow me to
clarify something, is it her intent with this amendment to say that no
contractor will use Federal funds but will not be denied the right to
lobby by using their own private funds?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, this is titled ``limitation on the use of Federal funds by
contractors for political advocacy.'' I do not know how you can be any
clearer than that. That is the title of this.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, lots of titles of lots of bills and
lots of amendments are deceiving as much as we might intend it
otherwise. I specifically would like the gentlewoman to express her
intent, her individual intent, the author of this amendment's intent.
Would a contractor who expressly uses his or her, or its own money,
private money, be entitled to lobby under her amendment?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman is correct, because what my amendment
says is that it is a limitation on the use of Federal funds to award
contracts. None of the funds made available by this act, this act,
period. That is about as clear as I know how to make it. Funds made
available by this act, which is the defense act going to defense
contractors, can be used to go out and lobby for more next year. What
we are really saying is the money we are allocating today goes for
weapons, not for a way to make sure you get in next year's bill.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, next year the money becomes privatized
once it become awarded. I understand the intent, but once money is
earned on a contract, it becomes private. How does one determine
whether or not that is money from this act, this particular contract?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Livingston was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, again, all of those regulations are about the fact that they
have to show their costs. We know, if anything, we probably have too
many regulations overregulating, making sure we know that. We make sure
we have all sorts of people doing oversight everywhere in the Defense
Department because we do not just let them guess what it is going to
cost and then find out they spent half the money to go out on a cruise
instead. We know we are supposed to be doing that oversight. So that is
how we know and I think it is very clear.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if it is the gentlewoman's express
intent not to deny private individuals, private corporations, from
using their own private funds for lobbying the U.S. Congress, and that
her intent is exclusively to deny the right of use of Federal funds for
lobbying, then I withdraw my objection.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I am delighted that the gentleman from Louisiana
withdrew his objection. That is my intent and I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 9.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: Page 94, after line 3,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 8107. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, the amount made available for the National Foreign
Intelligence program (other than for the Central Intelligence
Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund) from the
appropriations provided in this Act shall not exceed 90
percent of the amount made available for such Agencies (other
than for such Fund) from the appropriations provided in the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1995 (Pub. L. 103-
335.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which is
cosponsored by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple and should be supported,
although I doubt that it will, by all deficit hawks and those of us who
are concerned about a cost-effective government. It cuts funding for
the national foreign intelligence program by 10 percent. That is a 10-
percent cut in funding for the CIA, and it is a 10-percent cut to the
intelligence activities and the Drug Enforcement Administration, the
FBI, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency,
the Defense Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies.
Mr. Chairman, again, let me reiterate that this does not cut the
funding for the entire agency. It merely cuts the funding for their
intelligence gathering activities.
I would also like to point out that this amendment does not cut
intelligence funding for war-time operations. Both tactical and joint
military intelligence are not cut. This amendment does not compromise
our military strength.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not affect the CIA
retirement and disability fund.
Recent articles in the Washington Post and other publications
estimate that the entire intelligence budget is approximately $29
billion. According to information from a variety of publications and
from public documents, about $16 billion of that budget goes to the
national foreign intelligence program. That means that this amendment,
if adopted, would save the taxpayers of America about $1.6 billion, and
even in Washington that is a lot of money.
Mr. Chairman, how do we explain to the American people that Congress
is considering major cuts in Medicare, which will have a disastrous
impact on the lives of many elderly people; major cuts in Medicaid,
which will hurt senior citizens and low-income people; major cuts in
student loans, in education; major cutbacks in nutrition programs, in
housing and in the environment and a variety of other programs which
will impact on tens of millions of people in the middle class, the
working class, the elderly, low-income people. How do we say that we
can go forward in those areas but, despite the end of the cold war,
despite the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists, that we cannot
make at least a 10-percent cut in the intelligence budget and save the
taxpayers $1.6 billion?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as we find ourselves in a world where there are more
and more intelligence targets popping up every day, it is not a good
idea to further reduce our intelligence budget. Now, I say further
reduce because we have already reduced this budget by 16 percent since
1990. We have far less intelligence spending today than we did during
Desert Storm. The intelligence community work force is going through a
significant downsizing. In the next three fiscal years the work force
will be 23 percent smaller than it was in 1990.
The Sanders amendment would affect the intelligence community's
ability to support policymakers, military leaders at the national,
theater, and tactical levels and law enforcement officials. It could
impact critical support to deployed military commanders and tactical
forces such as those in Bosnia;

[[Page H 8649]]
critical investments in satellite collection initiatives that are
intended to aid our deployed military forces, counternarcotics,
international crime and counterterrorism collection, and analytical
capabilities would all be affected; as well as our ability to keep pace
with the telecommunications developments which are growing
dramatically. We cannot afford to do this.
Mr. Chairman, our intelligence budget is already, in my opinion,
below the level where it should be. What are some of the targets? What
are some of the areas where we have to have intelligence if we are
going to protect the U.S. interests and U.S. personnel. Bosnia is the
very obvious location. Iraq is very obvious. North Korea, has been in
the media for months as well as Russia and the former Soviet states.
Libya and Syria have terrorism groups who have threatened the United
States interests. Those who would proliferate nuclear weapons, chemical
and biological weapons, and we cannot deny the fact that these are all
happening. We have to know where and how.
Drugs. Narcotics. The post-cold-war environment. When the Berlin Wall
came down and the Iron Curtain melted, we all breathed a sigh of relief
and thought, hey, the world will be a beautiful place, full of peace.
But while we are still applauding ourselves, up out of the sands of the
desert comes Saddam Hussein.
We have to have intelligence. The United States, being the Nation
that we are, we have to have adequate intelligence. And I say again, in
this bill, we have reduced the intelligence budget to a level actually
below where I think it ought to be. A further 10 percent cut just is
not acceptable.
Mr. Chairman, as much as I agreed with and supported the gentleman
from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] on his earlier amendment, I have to oppose
this one with equal fervor because this would be extremely dangerous.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the taxpayers are listening very carefully.
Taxpayers are angry and they have good reason to be angry. We are
paying too much taxes. Taxes should be lowered for families and
individuals, while we raise taxes for corporations. Families and
individuals are paying something like 44 percent of the tax burden.
Corporations are only paying 11 percent, but that is a discussion for
another time.
The other way we deal with the way our money is being handled is by
streamlining and downsizing and cutting out waste in Government. Here
is a concrete example of extreme waste in Government. We cannot talk
about concrete figures because they will not give them to us, but there
is general agreement. Nobody ever challenges the figure, but the
overall intelligence budget is about $28 billion, no less than $28
billion. We are talking today about one portion of it which deals with
information gathering activities related to the military which
everybody agrees is no less than $16 billion.
In previous amendments we have called for a 10-percent cut in the
overall intelligence budget, and that would have been $2.8 billion, or
a 10-percent cut for 1 year. And then we said over a 7-year period of
course that adds up to much more.
This is a reasonable amendment, very reasonable. As the gentleman
from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] pointed out, it does not apply in wartime. A
number of things are exempted. It is understood that we need an
intelligence operation. Nobody is saying we do not need it.
What we are saying is that, while we are streamlining, while we are
downsizing, while we are going after military pensions and the pensions
of Government employees, while we are cutting Medicare, while we are
cutting Medicaid, while we have just cut the budget of the title I
program for education by $1.1 billion, while we have cut out the whole
summer youth employment program, while we are doing all this, then let
us look at a piece of waste in this budget which is obvious. It is
obvious that we do not need the CIA at the same level as we had it
before.
{time} 1615

The gentleman before us said, and I will take him for his word, he
said we have cut it by 16 percent since 1990. If half of the total
activities of the CIA budget were dedicated to the Soviet Union, the
evil empire, a major opponent, the other superpower, it used to be the
other superpower, a real threat, half of the intelligence budget was
dedicated to the Soviet Union, if half of the budget was dedicated to
the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union is no longer that kind of threat,
then surely we can cut the budget.
If Members say the Soviet Union does not exist anymore, the fragments
of the Soviet Union still constitute some kind of threat, let us cut
the budget not by half, let us cut it by 25 percent. That is
reasonable, instead of 16 percent, let us cut it by 25 percent, which
means we have some more cutting to do. We can cut.
We are talking about very real money, that if it is not cut here,
will be cut from somewhere else. We can use this $1.6 billion a year.
The $1.6 billion per year could be used to replace the $1.1 billion we
just cut from the title I program for children's education. That is
where we need the intelligence.
Our intelligence budget should be increased in the area of education.
Nothing is more significant, nothing is more important for the security
of the Nation than an informed population, than a well-educated
population. The brain power of America will decide whether we remain a
superpower and the leader of the world, or not.
That brain power is suffering right now because we just cut it $1.1
billion. Here is an opportunity to make a cut where it should be, $1.6
billion, out of the intelligence budget. What does the intelligence
budget do? The present budget, it is bloated, and because it is
bloated, because there is too much bureaucracy, because they do not
have enough things to do, they get into situations like the Aldrich
Ames situation.
This should be called, partially, the Aldrich Ames Cleansing Act.
Aldrich Ames, who had a high place in the CIA, for years did nothing
but destructive activities. He carried on a whole series of destructive
activities for many years, for which he was paid millions of dollars by
the enemies he was supposed to have been spying upon. Aldrich Ames
could get away with that because it had no significance. It had
significance in terms of the people who died, agents who were in the
service of this country died as a result of Aldrich Ames' treacherous
activities, but it did not have any significance on peace or war in the
world. It had no significance with respect to the security of the
United States. We do not need to keep spending $16 billion in this
particular area and $28 billion overall for the CIA. We can cut the
intelligence budget.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more strongly with the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Young], the chairman of the Subcommittee on National
Security of the Committee on Appropriations. I might also mention the
gentleman from Florida is a member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
I could not any more eloquently outline why we should not accept this
amendment. Rather than repeat a number of the things that the gentleman
from Florida said, Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is to quote
from a speech which the President, Mr. Clinton, made to employees of
the Central Intelligence Agency recently on a visit that he made there.

Today, because the Cold War is over, some say that we
should and can step back from the world and that we don't
need intelligence as much as we used to; that we ought to
severely cut the intelligence budget. A few have even urged
us to scrap the central intelligence service.
I think these views are profoundly wrong. I believe making
deep cuts in intelligence during peacetime is comparable to
canceling your health insurance when you're feeling fine. We
are living in a moment of hope. Our Nation is at peace. Our
economy is growing all right. All around the world, democracy
and free markets are on the march. But none of these
developments are inevitable or irreversible.
Now, instead of a single enemy, we face a host of scattered
and dangerous challenges. They are quite profound and
difficult to understand. There are ethnic and regional
tensions that threaten to flare into full-scale war in more
than 30 nations. Two dozen countries are trying to get their
hands on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. As these
terrible tools of destruction spread, so too spreads the
potential for terrorism and for criminals to acquire them.
And drug

[[Page H 8650]]
trafficking, organized crime, and environmental decay threaten the
stability of new and emerging democracies and threaten our
well-being here at home.
In the struggle against these forces, you, the men and
women of our intelligence community, serve on the front
lines. By necessity, a lot of your work is hidden from the
headlines. But in recent months alone, you warned us when
Iraq massed its troops against the Kuwaiti border. You
provided vital support to our peacekeeping and humanitarian
missions in Haiti and Rwanda. You helped to strike a blow at
a Columbian drug cartel. You uncovered bribes that would have
cheated American companies out of billions of dollars. Your
work has saved lives and promoted America's prosperity.

Mr. Chairman, those are words from a speech that the President made
to employees of the Central Intelligence Agency. I do not normally
quote the President. However, I do not think it could be better summed
up. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and would urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am touched by the endorsement of the Republican
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
Clinton policy in this regard, but I have to disagree with it. In fact,
we are being told a couple of unbelievable things. Essentially we are
being told that the collapse of the Soviet Union means that there is no
opportunity to save money in intelligence. We are told there is, after
all, Iraq and Iran and Libya. I agree.
I disagree with the implicit assumption that there was no Iraq in
1986, that Libya was created in 1983, and that Iran just floated down.
All of those other threats were there at the same time. Ten years ago
we were dealing with the terrorist threats in Syria, in Iraq, and
Libya. Those were not the Andrews sisters a few years ago who suddenly
turned ugly on us. Those countries and the threats they projected were
a fact 10 years ago.
We also had, as the primary focus of our national security
expenditure, a Soviet Union which led an unwilling empire of many other
nations that were being held captive, that threatened our very
existence. Yes, there are problems in the world today. There are people
who run countries today who in a good world would not even be allowed
to drive cars. They mean us harm and we need to defend ourselves.
However, we have succeeded in helping bring about the collapse of our
single greatest enemy, so that the vast amounts of money and technology
we had to spend to watch the Soviet Union and its capacity to make
nuclear war on us, to deal with the Warsaw Pack and the millions of men
under arms that threatened us there, they are substantially diminished.
The notion that with this collapse of the major part of the threat
there is no grounds for savings is nonsense, but it is not simply
abstract nonsense. It is now nonsense that drives us to say that
college students will not get the kind of student loans they used to
get, that drives us to say that we cannot afford enforcement in
environmental areas, that drives us to take money away, so that public
housing projects have recently been told, thanks to the rescission that
the other party put through, that needed repairs to elderly housing
will have to be deferred.
The argument that we cannot make substantial cuts when the
substantial threat has diminished is nonsense. Everything that is now a
threat today was a threat 10 years ago. There are no brand new threats
in the world. What is new is that we do not have this ongoing
likelihood of thermonuclear war, and what we are saying is we believe
that at least a 10-percent cut is possible, given the collapse of that
central threat.
I was also struck when the chairman of the subcommittee, my elevator
buddy that I travel with up and down, said ``We have cut 16 percent,''
because I do not believe we have cut 16 percent in nominal dollars.
That is, I do not think the dollar amount today is 16 percent less than
what it was. I think he was saying that in real terms it has been cut.
That is, it has not been allowed to keep up with inflation.
That is very striking, because my Republican friends in particular,
when we are talking about a program that they like, suddenly start
talking about real terms, and the failure to keep up with inflation is
considered a cut. When they are talking about programs they do not
like, that gets reversed.
In fact, there has not been a 16-percent reduction in the dollars.
What they are saying is it has not been allowed to keep up with
inflation, but it has not been aimed at inflation, it has been aimed at
the Soviet Union.
One other point. If any other agency of government had had the kind
of disaster that the Central Intelligence Agency had with Aldrich Ames,
we would be talking about the need to cut back on their money because
they were so badly run. They employed a Russian spy. If HUD had working
for it a person who was secretly demolishing good housing, HUD would be
held to account. If the NIH had somebody who went around and spread the
plague we would say ``We have to control them.''
The CIA is like the Defense Department. If they screw up badly, this
house will reward them with more money, the theory apparently being
that since they wasted so much of what we gave them, we had better give
them some more to make up for it. It is an absolute reversal of the
normal rules. If a domestic agency misspends money, they are in
trouble. When others in national security do, they get rewarded. If our
national security was at stake, that would be a factor, but in this
bill we are ignoring the savings that the American people are entitled
to by the collapse of that threat to our national security.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I will not
take the full 5 minutes, but I will say briefly that I feel this is a
very reasonable amendment, a very moderate amendment, and in fact, I
would make an argument that it is a very conservative amendment. As
most people in this House know, I think I have one of the highest
percentages of voting with the majority of my party in the years since
I have been here.
I know that not many on my side of the aisle will be voting for this
amendment, but I am very pleased that many or several leading
conservative organizations have voiced support for this, including very
strong support from the Citizens for a Sound Economy, because this is a
conservative amendment, because it would save a substantial amount of
taxpayers' money.
Many of us saw on the front page of the U.S.A. Today a few days ago
that our national debt has now reached over $5 trillion. Alice Rivlin,
who is the President's Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
put out a memo a few months ago and said we will have yearly losses of
over $1 trillion a year by the year 2010, and over $5 trillion a year
by the year 2030, if we do not make major changes now. This is one area
that can be reduced without harmful effect, because even if this
amendment goes through, we can still have a very strong, even a lavish
intelligence operation in this country.
I favor a strong intelligence operation, but surely to goodness we
can have a good, strong intelligence operation with all the many
billions that would be left, even if this amendment passed. If this
amendment passes, and it is a cut of 10 percent of a little over half
of our intelligence operation in this country, if this amendment passes
we will still be spending more than twice the annual budget of the
entire State of Tennessee for all that it does; and Tennessee, with a
little over 5 million people, is exactly typical, and almost exactly
average, in all areas of spending compared to other States, all the
other States in this country, so we can still have a very active
intelligence operation.
Let me tell the Members what some of this money is being spent for.
Last year it was reported on the front page of the Washington Post that
the National Reconnaissance Office was building a secret building out
here in Virginia, spending $310 million for a 1-million-square-foot
building. That is $310 a square foot, about three times the amount that
State governments spend on beautiful buildings all over this country.
They are spending in these lavish, ridiculous ways because they are not
being held back or not being held accountable in the way that they
should be for taxpayer money.
These agencies, our intelligence agencies, unfortunately did not
predict

[[Page H 8651]]
the coming down of the Berlin Wall, they did not predict the breakup of
the Soviet Union. They are doing these esoteric studies and benefiting
and helping no one, really, other than the bureaucrats who work for
these agencies.
Therefore, I think it is time to step back and take another look at
some of these agencies, and reduce their spending at the very time that
we are downsizing the military. Many people, most people that I
represent, would feel that we should really downsize the intelligence
operations even more, and perhaps downsize the military of this country
a little bit less, so I think this is a very fair, reasonable,
amendment, and I urge its support.
{time} 1630

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, today's entire debate seems to be an exercise in
delusion.
For those who have not been following events in the world, let me
repeat something that doesn't seem to be getting through: The cold war
is over. And now that the cold war is over, what in the world are we
doing increasing the intelligence budget?
We simply have no business doing this at a time when we are slashing
funds for Medicare, student aid, and child nutrition.
And, we have no business doing this at a time when the threat we are
facing in this world is much reduced.
Mr. Chairman, it's time for this Congress to wake up and snap out of
it. The cold war is over. It's time to cut the intelligence budget.
This cut is fair, this cut is needed, and this cut should be passed.
The Sanders-Owens amendment saves over 1.5 billion. It needs our
support.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I was listening to the debate and watching the debate
from my office when I was compelled to come here, because, as I
remember, during the debate on the appropriations bill dealing with
education programs, with programs for our working men and women to
protect them at the workplace, for health programs for seniors, we made
dramatic cuts in some of those programs, in some cases eliminating
programs.
For example, we cut out every single dollar that we put in to
subsidize seniors' payments of their home heating bills during the
times in the winter when it is very expensive, especially on the east
coast, to try to heat your home. This is for families, mostly seniors,
as I said before, who are on subsidized incomes already and who are
finding it very difficult to pay their bills, very expensive heating
bills. We saw the case in Chicago recently where 400 people died
because they had problems keeping their places cool enough to stay
there and live, 400 people dying.
We cut dramatically into those programs, in some cases eliminating.
Here we find that we are increasing a budget, and we cannot say the
number because it is a secret, but we are increasing the budget for an
operation which in many respects has outlived some of its purpose. The
cold war is over. We have all said that.
Certainly we need our intelligence gathering abilities to remain, but
we must certainly tighten our belts, and that includes within the
intelligence branch of government. Yet we see that we are increasing
the amount by something close to $1 billion, and at least we are trying
to cut at least $1 billion out, to have the pain of cuts go all around.
Let me point out one thing that really disturbs me greatly. During
the debate on this education appropriations bill, we dealt with the
Head Start Program which helps young children. We were told during the
debate by this new congressional majority that we had to cut Head Start
programming to the tune of $137 million. That is what we cut from last
year's funding levels. Why? Because we were told in some cases some of
the programs that are administering these dollars for our kids were not
very efficient. There was some overlap. We could make better use of the
dollars, and this was a signal to them that they better shape up.
Yet we learned that with the CIA we are funding assassinations in
countries like Guatemala with the assistance of CIA operatives. We find
that they are spending $300 million on lavish offices and buildings,
and here we are telling the American people that we have to tighten our
belt and cut Head Start $137 million because the administration has not
been as efficient as we would like.
I do not think that makes sense. On a budget that we cannot reveal
the numbers to the American people, because it is an intelligence
matter, we are saying ``Let us increase'', but when it comes to real
intelligence, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] pointed out,
when it comes to our school children, we are willing to cut.
Forty years ago we had a President, Mr. Eisenhower, who said national
security of this country relies on having educated people and a society
that knows how to work, and for the first time the Federal Government
became involved in helping local schools and local State governments
fund education.
Ten years later under President Johnson we passed for the first time
an education act to really have the Federal Government get involved. Of
all the moneys that schools spend, the Federal Government provides
about 6 percent of those dollars, a very small amount, but it is more
than we used to.
Now we are told we have to cut back on what we spend on our children,
because we have to tighten our belt, yet here we are told, ``No; you do
not have to tighten your belt, spend more, spend more'', even though
you are telling Head Start folks, ``You cannot get more because you did
not administer very efficiently'', but the CIA, which helps fund
assassinations by CIA operatives, that is OK.
There is something wrong. There is an inconsistency here, and I hope
the Members of this body will realize that and vote for this very
sound, very well-meaning and, I think, very meaningful way to send a
message that everyone must tighten their belt. It is time for us to do
it, not just for Head Start but to do it for the intelligence community
as well.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to my colleagues that we have
made dramatic reductions in the intelligence budget, which is a
classified matter and I cannot get into the details of it, but we have
cut this budget more than George Bush wanted and much more than Bill
Clinton wanted. I think we are on a course to reduce not only personnel
but the overall expenditures, part of the major reduction in defense
spending.
Sometimes people forget that between 1985 and 1995 we have reduced
defense spending by about 38 percent, or $100 billion in real terms.
The intelligence community has taken its proportion of those
reductions, as I mentioned, not only in personnel but also in
equipment.
This year's bill was put together on a very bipartisan basis. We
looked at the needs in all areas of intelligence, and we came up with a
number which is classified and I cannot get into, but I think is about
as appropriate to the challenge that we are faced with out there.
Departed Director Jim Woolsey talked about the fact that in a post-
cold-war era the world is not as safe and comfortable and cozy as a lot
of people thought it was going to be. We have got problems throughout
the world, and in my judgment the intelligence budget today is at about
the right size and, as I have said, dramatically below what George Bush
and President Clinton asked for.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman disputes the figures that were
given to us by another member of the committee. Sixteen percent was a
cut, he said, that has taken place, and you say it is more like a $100
billion cut?
Mr. DICKS. On the defense appropriations bill. The intelligence
budget is a part of the defense appropriations bill. What I was saying
first is defense spending has been----
Mr. OWENS. You agree with the 16 percent figure that he gave us?
Mr. DICKS. I am not going to get into a percentage number because I
think that may be classified itself. I am just going to say the defense
budget

[[Page H 8652]]
itself has been cut by 37 percent between 1985 and 1995 or about $100
billion. We are down from $350 billion to $250 billion.
If the gentleman would go on with me for one more second, in
procurement, we are going to have a procurement readiness problem out
there in the future. The cut is from $135 billion to $41 billion.
We have been cutting defense very dramatically, and the intelligence
budget has been cut as part of that. President Clinton, when he ran for
President, talked about cutting it by 1.5 percent per year. We have cut
it beyond that. We have cut it more deeply than that. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] has been the person who, when he was
chairman, made serious cuts in that budget.
Mr. OWENS. We want more money to go to the real defense budget, and
not have Aldrich Ames and his colleagues wasting our money, at the same
time killing our agents. We think it is being misspent and dangerously
wasted in the intelligence operation.
Mr. DICKS. As the gentleman knows, President Clinton has just named
Mr. Deutch to come in and be the new director. I as a Democrat feel
that John Deutch is very competent, very professional. He has brought
in a new management team, he has brought in a whole new top team at the
directorate of operations where Mr. Ames resided, and you are right,
there were serious problems there.
But to come in here now and say, well, because there were serious
problems, we need to take a meat ax approach to the intelligence
budget, I do not think is the right approach to it. As I looked at the
budget just the other day, and I do not think any of the Members of the
House have been up to even look at the classified annex of the budget,
that is the only way you can really look and see what is in this
budget.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Just tell the American people why it is OK to slash
Medicare, education, and Head Start at a time, for example, in terms of
education, we know we need more help for education, when at the same
time half of the intelligence budget as I understand it went to fight
the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union no longer exists. Why can we not
make a modest $1.6 billion reduction in intelligence funding?
Mr. DICKS. I would say to the gentleman, first of all, I share his
concern about Medicare, Medicaid, and education, and I did not vote for
balanced budget amendment that required a major tax cut which makes it
a requirement to cut too deeply into these programs.
But I do believe that we have made serious and significant cuts in
the intelligence budget already, in prior years leading up to this
year, and also we have cut the defense budget which the intelligence
budget is part of, so I think we have done the job. I think what the
gentleman is offering is too severe, goes too far, and is not well
thought out.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I think the easiest course
to take perhaps on this bill would be to support an amendment that
would cut the intelligence funding that is so vital for our national
security in a time when we are making tough decisions. But our job here
in Washington is to look beyond what is the superficially easy answer
and decision and to look at what in fact substantively is needed.
I spent the greater part of the break updating myself on what is
happening in the former Soviet republics, and I hope my colleagues did
the same. I would encourage my colleagues who may not have read what
has been called perhaps the most important foreign policy book of this
year, to read the book called Zhirinovsky. This book came out in the
end of June 1995, and is a very intensely researched document by two
leading Russian writers on Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who is leading the
National Liberal Democratic Party. Zhirinovsky, as most of our
colleagues know, his party won a majority of the seats in the Duma
elections last year and stands to make significant gains in the
elections in Russia this coming year.
For those who would argue that the threat from the former Soviet
Union no longer exists, I would say take some time to read and update
yourselves, whether it is through this particular book, which is a
factual documentation, or perhaps the daily FIBUS reports which all of
you have access to, which I read every day, on what is happening inside
the former Soviet republics.
I take great pride in reaching out to the former Soviet Union. I
cochair the energy caucus with the Russian Duma members, I cochair the
environmental effort, and I work with them regularly.
But we have to understand, the military leadership in Russia today is
the same military leadership that was there when it was the Soviet
Union. They have not gone away. They have not run off and converted
themselves. The generals in charge are the same generals who were in
charge when it was a Communist state, and if you look at what is
happening with the intelligence reports that we have access to as
Members, they are planning on playing a major role in the upcoming Duma
elections this December.
For those who say we can ignore all of this and that we can somehow
put our heads in the sand and think that all is rosy, you are just not
being honest with yourself or with the American people, because that is
not factually borne out by what is happening in that country. There is
tremendous turmoil in Russia. There is turmoil in Ukraine.
We had the President of Belarus, just 1 month ago, say he was no
longer going to allow the return of the SS-25 missiles. He said he is
going to keep them on his own soil, because Russia was not giving
enough money to assist in dismantling those missiles. Those are the
same missiles, by the way, that have a range of 5,500 kilometers, that
can hit any city in America.
Mr. Chairman, I am not here as an alarmist, but what I am asking our
colleagues to do is to read factual information. If my colleagues would
like to read the book on Zhirinovsky if they have the time, I will
provide a copy to them. If they would like to read the FIBUS reports, I
will summarize them for them. If you would like to meet with some of
the 100 Duma members I met with this year, I will arrange for that. You
can laugh all you want. We are talking about a serious issue.
The point is, Mr. Chairman, that what we are doing here I think could
really shortchange not just our military but the security of the free
world. It might sound good to make a 10-percent cut in the intelligence
budget. That is absolutely the wrong decision to be making on this
bill, and I would encourage our colleagues to reject this amendment and
support efforts to beef up our understanding of what is happening in
the former Soviet republics.

{time} 1645

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues who appeared
just before, he raised a point which I think is very, very important.
During much of this debate, people have been suggesting that the world
has changed so radically because the East-West confrontation has
disappeared and, therefore, we can just radically adjust our defense
spending, but there is no need for intelligence spending as well.
Mr. Chairman, let me say this: Beginning with an important point to
me, it is my privilege now serving on the Committee on Appropriations,
to serve on the Subcommittee on National Security that is before us
today. But I also serve with my chairman of the Subcommittee on
National Security as a colleague on the Select Committee on
Intelligence as well. To combine those two responsibilities gives one a
much different picture of the world than I had preceding that service.
Mr. Chairman, there is little question that all of us are very
hopeful about the future in terms of the prospects of peace for the
world. The hopeful elimination of the East-West confrontation is
encouraging to each and every one of

[[Page H 8653]]
us who care about our future. Because of that, many in the House have
automatically assumed that we can afford to lightly, almost radically
readjust our defense spending.
As a result of that, as has been discussed, we have readjusted
downward over the last several years in this Nation, causing us today
to be spending $100 billion less than we were before. To suggest that
in light of that, that just lightly we can recalculate the need for
intelligence spending, readjust similarly, or whack away at these
programs would be the gravest of mistakes in terms of our
responsibility, not just to this House, the people we represent, but
also to those people we would have to preserve peace for in the world.
The intelligence community has come down, as has been discussed.
Since 1990, the reductions have been close to 16 percent in this area.
But let me say to my colleagues, further reduction could be a dramatic
mistake on our part, for as we have reduced defense spending, we are
dealing with the reality that the world is much more complex today, not
less complex than when we were dealing directly, day in and day out, in
our concerns about the Soviet Union.
Indeed, the world is complex not only in terms of Russia, but very,
very complex in terms of those other countries we must deal with. And
further complex by the fact that it is a much more dangerous world.
Those who tended to set aside concerns about terrorism took a look
again when bombs went off in New York. But even then, people lightly
set that aside.
Oklahoma City came along and questions were raised one more time.
Maybe we better know more about this complex world. I would submit to
my colleagues and Members that this is exactly not the time to be
reducing these budgets.
Indeed, the President, and I would speak to my colleagues on the
Democratic side of the aisle especially, our President at this time
needs more and better information, not less information. To cut this
valuable base from under him is going to undermine his ability to
develop policy that is critical to the future of peace in the world.
This is not the moment for us to presume that intelligence is
unnecessary. Indeed, the intelligent decision is to be increasing these
budgets at this moment instead.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just point out
that we are not slashing Medicare. There is nothing about Medicare in
this bill. And I can make this commitment to you, that in any
legislation that this Congress brings forth to the House there will not
be any slash in Medicare.
There is nothing in this bill about Head Start. There are a lot of
things that were talked about during the debate that are not in this
bill. And the reason I make this point is that there are 13 different
appropriations bills, many agencies of Government, each one of them
having their own areas of responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, we do not do anybody a service by trying to play one
against the other and say we cannot do this because we are going to do
that. These are all important, but they are not all done in the same
appropriations bill.
A lot of things that have been talked about are things that could be
done by the State governments. And as my colleagues know, through our
block grant program we plan to do that.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Young of Florida, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Lewis of California was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of activities
that we are going to be funding through block grants and other types of
programs, but a lot of those could be done by the States or the local
governments.
Mr. Chairman, if there is anything that the cities or the counties or
the States cannot do that must be done by the Federal Government it is
to protect the security of this Nation. We are talking about a national
defense. We are talking about an Army, a Navy, an Air Force, a Marine
Corps, a Coast Guard, an intelligence community, and all of these
related activities.
Those things can only be done by the Federal Government. The States
cannot do them. So, we as the Federal Congress have an obligation. The
Constitution gives us the obligation to provide for the common defense.
That includes intelligence, knowing what is happening in the world
which might affect us. Let us face it, almost everything that happens
in the world affects the United States today because of the Nation that
we are.
We cannot afford to put blinders on our eyes or to put plugs in our
ears and not be able to determine what a potential threat might be or
where it might be coming from.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot accept this amendment. It is just too massive
a cut in a relatively small budget that is essential to providing for
the protection of the security of our Nation and our interests,
whatever they might be, and our people.
Mr. Chairman, I emphasize our people, because intelligence not only
deals with the spooky spy things that we hear about in the movies, but
it deals with threats from terrorists. We deal with threats from
narcotics dealers. We deal with threats from nuclear, biological, and
chemical weapons. We are dealing with providing intelligence on a lot
of threats.
If we do not have that intelligence, we are blindfolded. We just
cannot have this cut.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Florida for he has said
it all. In this moment, in this very, very complex world, it is just
the moment the President needs more and better information and the
House needs that information too.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons we have been able to cut
the defense budget by $100 billion is because we are getting better and
better intelligence. In the gulf war, for example, we were able to use
precision-guided munitions and we were able to use the intelligence we
had for targeting purposes, and we got a much higher kill rate than we
ever got in any other war before.
As we move into the future, with the block 30 upgrade on the B-2, we
will be able to fuse intelligence right into the cockpit and go after
Scud missile launcher and other mobile targets.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of
California was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, in the totality of the defense budget, we
are going to be able to come down a little further if we have quality
intelligence. I just believe that a 10-percent cut on top of what we
have done over the last 4 or 5 years is too severe and I urge that we
defeat the amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] makes a very important point.
Indeed, it is my work on the Select Committee on Intelligence that has
caused me to believe that we are right on the verge of peace in our
time. There is a hope for peace in the world, because of some of the
things that America is about. Our intelligence community is playing a
very significant role in that connection.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have heard a
few things said on the floor, and I feel that if people would have
served in the frontline, either in the intelligence agency or in the
service of this country in the military, that their views might change
because of the threat.
First of all, I heard that the cold war is over. Russia, the former
Soviet Union, today has built and is producing an airplane called the
Su-35. It is superior to our F-14's and even our F-15 Strike Eagles.
That airplane carries an AA-10 missile superior to our AMRAAM. They are
stealthing their

[[Page H 8654]]
Baltic fleet. They are second in the world at accomplishing that.
Mr. Chairman, I look at Bosnia and the threat that we have there, the
imminent threat of putting our troops; another reason why I did not
want to lift the arms embargo. Saddam Hussein is still out there. The
problems in Israel and North Korea.
The Bottom-Up Review was a level at which we were supposed to fight
two conflicts simultaneously after our drawdown. Well, according to
GAO, we are between $150 to $200 billion below the Bottom-Up Review,
and this is the bare-bone minimum, after a drawdown.
Mr. Chairman, especially in a weakened state, and after the hearings
and the testimony time and time again before our committee where they
say we could go to war, but it would be a very short-lasting readiness
level, that we definitely need more intelligence instead of less.
Second, this is at times, Mr. Chairman, a very evil place and I
believe that. It is a place about power. It is a place about the
ability to disperse money so that you can get reelected with interest
groups. It is the ability to get reelected so that you can control the
power and control the majority. And to do that, what we are actually
trying to do in education and welfare and the other things are damaged.
Let me give you a couple of classic examples. We get a very low
percentage of the dollars back down in the education because the
Federal bureaucracy that eats it up here in Washington, DC, but I have
heard people say we are cutting education. What we are doing is cutting
the Federal bureaucracy.
We only get 23 cents of every dollar that we send here back to the
classroom. Take a look at the State bureaucracy, which we have to limit
as well. That is not helping education. Look across this country with
the SAT scores and reading comprehension, the system has failed.
The gentleman from the other side has his right to a view of bigger
government and bigger bureaucracy. I am not disputing his right to have
that view. But in that view, it damages the national security of this
country, and that I do dispute.
I look at welfare and a very failed system where we only get about 30
cents out of every buck down to it, but yet they will tell you that we
are taking food out of mothers' mouths. And in the Medicare system
where we are increasing it from $4,800 to $6,700, that is not a cut;
that is an add.
Mr. Chairman, we are not going under the same assumptions that they
do that we are going to allow the mismanagement, the $16 billion in
fraud, waste, and abuse and other things. The bottom line is that we
are taking that power out of Washington and moving it back to the
States. In the meantime, we are trying to protect this country and its
national security needs. In a weakened state, we need to encourage the
increase in the intelligence community.
Right now, today, over Bosnia, we have an unmanned drone called the
Predator. We are also using the Hunter. That information allows us to
find those targets and lessen the risk to our pilots as they are flying
over Bosnia today. Yet those systems under these cuts would probably go
away. They are just hanging on with the limited funds we have available
for national defense.
Can we afford to put our people's lives at risk when we are taking
these kinds of cuts? When we are already $200 billion below the Bottom-
Up Review and the President of this country, in his first Budget Act,
wanted to cut defense $177 billion, after candidate Clinton himself
said that $50 billion would put us into a hollow force.
So, Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's right to have his view,
but on the same term, I do not respect the ability that it would
diminish the chance of our men and women coming back in combat.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

{time} 1700

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, now is not really the time to get into a
debate over some of the issues that the gentleman from California and
the chairman raised, but I would just say the following: We are one
Government, and all of the money that we expend comes from the
taxpayers, the American people.
The facts are very clear that the United States has, for example, the
highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrial world. Nobody
disputes that. It is a national shame. In my view, the gentleman may
disagree.
The facts are also clear that as a result of policy being made by the
majority party, more and more children in this country will suffer and
childhood poverty will increase. The United States today, in the United
States today, millions of working-class families cannot afford to send
their kids to college.
To my mind, there is no question but as a result of recent decisions
made by the majority, it will be significantly harder for middle-class
families to send their kids to college.
In my State of Vermont and in California and all over this country,
millions of elderly people cannot afford the high cost of
pharmaceutical drugs, and millions of senior citizens today cannot
afford the high cost of health care, despite Medicare.
There is no dispute that as a result of cuts in Medicare, it will be
harder and harder for the elderly people to pay for their health care
needs, which are going up.
We are one people. If we expend more unnecessarily on intelligence
budgets, with the end of the cold war and the decline of the Soviet
Union, there is simply less money available to be used on other
domestic needs.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I oppose my friend's
amendment, and I say we worked hard in trying to balance the
intelligence-gathering effort in this country.
Over the years we saw that there was excessive spending, and we cut
it dramatically a couple of years ago, against the advice of the
President himself and the Director of the intelligence agency. But we
think we made the right cuts, the threat had changed so dramatically.
We are continuing that trend to make sure it is leaner and does a
better job with the changed threat.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Vermont in the fact
that it would be inappropriate to bring up those issues if they had not
been brought up by your side as saying that we were taking away from
this bill. That is the reason I addressed them.
Secondly, as we have been only in power for a very short time as far
as the majority, those kinds of things did not happen on our watch.
Look at the welfare system as it has failed today. Look at the
education system. We have good schools.
But as you take a look across the board, there is a lot of work we
can do to help those things, and with the Intelligence Committee and
with the drawdown of our defense forces, you cannot say the majority
party is destroying these other things to beef up defense. Those
systems are already in dire need of help. That is what we are trying to
do by taking the power away from you and away from Washington and
giving it back to the people.
Mr. MURTHA. Let me just urge the Members to vote against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, July 31,
1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] will be postponed.
The point of order of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

amendment offered by mrs. Schroeder

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H 8655]]

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder: Page 94, after line 3,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 8107. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by 3 percent.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I stand to say I think this is a very,
very important amendment and a chance to deal with the biggest threat
America has, and that is the threat of the debt. Look, that is our
biggest threat, and this is the first time I ever remember on this
House floor that we have voted for more money for the Defense
Department than the President asked for, who is commander in chief,
than the Pentagon asked for, than the Joint Chiefs asked for.
All this amendment does is it is an across-the-board cut to bring
that level back down to what the Pentagon, the President and the Joint
Chiefs came across the river and said this is what is needed for the
threat.
This is a total of a $7.8 billion increase above the level that was
requested by the Pentagon. Now, I just want to say that I think we
really, if we are going to talk about fiscal responsibility, this is an
area where we ought to do it.
Nobody has taken this floor during the entire debate and said that
the threat is $7.8 billion greater than the President viewed it, $7.8
billion greater than the Joint Chiefs viewed it or whatever. No. We did
not say that.
Instead, we voted to say we are going to add these different things
on that they did not ask for, but it should be threat-related,
especially when the biggest threat is the threat of the debt.
If you look at the defense budget after this cut would take effect,
it would still be that we are allocating more money to defense in this
country than the combined amounts of our NATO allies, Russia, and
Japan, more than all of those.
If you look at the costs that I am sure we are going to hear about
for some of the things that are going on in the Middle East and
Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, places where we now have troops and
where they are doing different things, be they humanitarian or
otherwise, the estimates for all of those things are only about $3
billion. So that is not driving this budget.
But what we are talking about here is $244.12 billion. That is really
an incredible amount of money, and I really think that kind of money
should be going to offset the debt.
I am not quite sure what the status of the whole lockbox issue is,
but my hope would be that this could be locked up for the deficit. But
if it is not, it could be used for many other things, too.
We have heard many other things during this debate that people
thought were very high priorities.
So think about it. All during the Cold War we never gave the Pentagon
more then they asked for, for heaven's sakes, and here it is over. We
are giving them more than they asked for and more than the rest of the
world together is spending on defense. Go figure.
What will this amendment do? What will it cut out? Well, we will hear
all sorts of people saying, oh, it could hurt this, it could hurt that.
Let me tell you, it does not say what they have to cut out. This gives
total discretion to the Pentagon to figure out where they would take
that 3 percent out.
They may decide they now want these new weapons they did not used to
want, so they could cut other things. Let me give you some examples of
places where folks say we could cut. If you look at just intelligence,
we have the CIA, we have the Defense Intelligence Agency, we have the
Navy Intelligence Agency, Air Force Intelligence agency, Army
Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and CIA. If you took all
of those, we are told you could save $19 billion in just overhead by
trying to just combine them, as we see corporate America doing, and
other such things, that there is a tremendous amount of overhead.
If you look at other places in the budget, there are all sorts of
other places you could save in overhead. I think it has always been
very interesting to me that each branch of the services has their own
chaplain school. You know, is there a different way to be a Navy
chaplain than there is to be an Army chaplain? I do not really think
so. The same with law schools, the same with all sorts of things. So
there are lots of ways that, if the Defense Department decides they now
want to keep the B-2's in, they now want to keep other things in they
had not asked for that we have put in, if they decide they want to do
that, fine.
There are many other ways they can juggle these numbers. This is a 3
percent cut to bring it back to what they originally asked for, and I
keep reminding you throughout this whole debate, no one heard one
person say the threat is greater than they said, the
amount is not enough.

Please, vote ``aye'' for this 3-percent cut.
The Appropriations Committee has recommended an appropriation of
$244.12 billion for DOD programs. This appropriation level represents a
$7.8 billion increase over the amount requested by the Pentagon. We
don't need this spending increase because:
1) Our defense spending currently amounts to more than that of our
NATO allies, Russia, and Japan combined.
2) We are still spending 92 cents for every dollar we spend during
the cold war, and the cold war is over.
3) The actual extra cost of assorted contingency operations in
Somalia, the Middle East, Africa, the former Yugoslavia, and elsewhere
totals approximately $3 billion per yer--1% of current military
spending.
Your amendment reduces the funding level appropriated for DOD
programs by 3% to conform the bill to the level requested by the
administration. We have better things that we could do with $8 billion.
For example, we could:
First, return it to the Treasury for deficit reduction.
Second, increase funding for biomedical research at NIH by 75%.
Third, clean up 312 superfund sites, average clean up costs per
superfund site is $25 million,
Fourth, block grant $156 million to each of the 50 states.
Fifth, pay for more than 70 million mammograms.
Sixth, cover childcare costs for 2 million children for 1 year.
Seventh, send 1.3 million children to Headstart for 1 year.
Eight, disperse Pell grants to 3.3 million needy students.
Ninth, put 235,493 new police officers on the street.
Tenth, offer prenatal and post-partum care to 2 million uninsured
pregnant women.
Eleventh, provide 55 million school lunches to eligible children.
Twelth, feed 9.5 million people one nutritious meal daily for one
year.
Thirteenth, nearly quadruple our investment in women's health at HHS.
The increase = Pork for Hawks
If our financial situation is so dire that we must cut education,
housing, and children's programs, then this increase in defense
spending is irresponsible. If we're trying to balance the budget then
why choose to spend:
*$974 million for a new, unrequested Amphibious Marine Transport
*$160 million for 8 unrequested AV-8 Harriers
*$140 million for 20 unrequested Kiowa Warrior Helicopters. This is
$20 million over the authorized amount.
*$40 million for 750 unrequested Hellfire missiles
*$39 million for 453 unrequested Javelin missiles
*$27.4 million for unrequested TOW2 System summary
*$46.1 million for 2100 unrequested MLRS Rockets
*$40 million for 45 unrequested Harpoon missiles
*$493 million, in unrequested funds, for the B-2 Bomber program
*$250 million for 6 unrequested F-15E Fighters
*$339 million for 10 unrequested C-130 Cargo Planes. This is $48.6
million and 2 planes over the authorized amount.
*$599 million more for Ballistic Missile Defense
*$200 million more for F-22 Fighters
announcement by the chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Before recognizing the next speaker, the Chair would
like to inform the House that the 5 hours provided under the unanimous-
consent agreement for the consideration of amendments expires at 5:27.
At that time, wherever we are on whichever amendment we are on, the
debate will cease and the Chair will put the question.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.

[[Page H 8656]]

Mr. Chairman, the way the amendment is written, each amount provided
by this act is hereby reduced by 3 percent. In other words, every
account in here, other than the mandatories, would be reduced by 3
percent. That is what the language says.
The problem here is that a large portion of that, almost two-thirds
of that reduction, would come from operation and maintenance and
military personnel.
Let me tell you what we would be cutting out of military personnel:
the pay raise. Do not the people that serve in the military deserve a
pay raise?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that it
does not come out of the pay raise. It does not come out of anything in
particular. It really is giving the Pentagon a line-item veto. They can
allocate this 3 percent however they would like to.
It is a 3 percent across the board or a 3 percent cut of different
areas, if you want to do it in personnel. I was pointing out all the
ways you could combine things, just in intelligence agencies alone, to
save $19 billion, and that will come under personnel by combining them.
I really respect the gentleman from Florida, and I hope we do not get
into trying to see a bogeyman here.
The President had in his budget a pay raise. We are all for a pay
raise We want that to happen.
But this is a budget that has more money than they asked for, and
this is just to bring it back down to those numbers.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 2
minutes be added to my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, that may be the argument of the
gentlewoman. That is not the way the amendment reads, and we have to go
by the way the amendment is offered before the House.
``Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this act is
hereby reduced by 3 percent.'' That means you go through the bill, pick
out the items that are not mandatory, that are not entitlements, and
they will be reduced by 3 percent.
All of the debate will not change that, and I say again that part of
those accounts are O&M and personnel. $4.5 billion of this reduction
would be applied to those two accounts. That is where the pay raise
comes from.
What else comes from that? Barracks. We have heard all year long
about the sad condition of so many of our barracks. Pentagon officials
who testified told us if you drive your kids up to college and their
dormitories looked like these barracks, you would put them in the car,
take them home; you would not let them stay. That is not fair that your
military personnel have to live in facilities like that.
During the break I had a chance to visit some of the military bases,
and I have seen some of the
barracks that go back to World War II. The tiles are falling off the
ceiling. The pipes are leaking. The money is not there to either
rebuild them or refurbish them.

So they are in poor condition, and they need to be corrected.
What about promotions? This would, in effect, stall a lot of
promotions that are already scheduled. The members of the military are
already starting to spend the money in their mind. Some of the
promotions are not going to be able to go forward.
As we put this bill together, we did not add a lot of new money for
procurement. We did not start up any nice, new, big programs. But what
we did, we looked at all of the services, and we tried to isolate and
identify those areas where there were real shortages of items that we
have to have, and what called this to my attention was that at one of
our earlier hearings this year we were talking about airplanes and
buying new airplanes, and the witness who was testifying told us, ``We
are not so much worried about the airplanes. We are short of tugs to
draw the airplanes from the hangars out to the runway,'' and it got me
thinking, I wonder how many items there are out there like that that
nobody has ever heard about that could actually stop the operation of
our military forces.
So I assigned the staff of the subcommittee to identify for me items
that nobody has ever heard about but that are essential and important
to the conduct of our military forces, and with the help of this page I
am going to unravel this long list of items you have never read about
in the newspaper, you have never heard about on television, because
they are not politically sexy, but they are things that are essential
to maintaining our military.
{time} 1715

Now here is where we added money, and, if we have to take a 3-percent
reduction, we are going to lose a lot of this, things like trucks. I
visited one Army facility. They had trucks that go back to Harry
Truman's Presidency.
We have added additional money in this bill to buy some new trucks to
replace those old trucks that cost more to maintain than to try to use
them.
What were some of the other shortfalls?
Believe it or not, ammunition, shortfalls in ammunition. We are
correcting that. We are adding additional money to buy ammunition.
What about rifles? Who would ever think that the U.S. Army would be
short on rifles? But we are. Certain types of rifles the U.S. Army has
a shortage.
Look at the testimony the Army testified today. Real property
maintenance, depot maintenance; those are the kind of things we put in
this bill.
As I said, we did not create a lot of new programs, we did not start
any massive new procurement programs or weapon systems. We are trying
to enhance those that we have; we are trying to take care of the nuts
and bolts to keep the machinery working.
Mr. Chairman, it reminds me of a statement that my grandmother taught
me many, many years ago, and I have later learned that she was not the
author, but she related it to me. and that was for the want of a nail
the shoe was lost, and for want of the shoe the horse was lost, and for
want of the horse the rider was lost, and it goes on to tell how the
battle was lost. Well, this list I have just unrolled here, these are
my horseshoe nails. We want to make sure we did not lose anything
important because we did not provide for the horseshoe nail.
This 3-percent across-the-board cut is going to cut into the
increases that we made in some of those nonsexy, nonpolitical, but
important, issues relative to those who serve in the Armed Forces, and
again, Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman would argue that her amendment
does not do that, but in fact it is exactly what it does.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to note in response to my good
friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], that I think it is
about the third time I have seen him roll out that sheet, the so-called
shortages, and all I would say is that I have in my hand this, what
someone else from Wisconsin used to say is a copy of a report from the
General Accounting Office. It is not very old, August 1995, is labeled
``Defense Inventory,'' and the cover sheet says shortages are recurring
but not a problem. The essence of the GAO report is simply that the
accounting system of DOD grossly overstates shortage problems, and I
would suggest that, therefore, we ought to take his concerns with a
grain of salt when evaluating the amendment of the gentlewoman from
Colorado.
Now I ordinarily do not like across-the-board cuts. I think they are
a brainless way to reduce expenditures and that we ought to have the
courage to single out individual items of low priority before being
excised from the budget in order to meet our responsibilities to reduce
the deficit. But this House has demonstrated on every occasion today
that it is not willing to make reductions in this bill in the
intelligent way, and so I think that it leaves us with only one choice
if we want to see a reduction, and that is to do it in the manner
suggested by the gentlewoman from Colorado. I regret that, but I think
the responsibility for the viability of the amendment of the
gentlewoman from Colorado lies with the committee for refusing to
support amendments such as limiting the B-2 purchase to the number
requested by

[[Page H 8657]]
the Pentagon or heeding the General Accounting Office when it says that
we should not be spending $70 billion 7 years early on the F-22.
Mr. Chairman, we have tried to go after specific nonessential
programs and have not found a willingness on the part of the House to
accommodate that, and so, if we are interested in seeing to it that
this agency is not exempted from the budget squeeze which has been
applied with great tenacity and sometimes with great viciousness to
other programs in Government, we have no choice but to pursue this
admittedly second- or even third-choice approach, but certainly being a
better approach than no approach at all, and so I am going to
reluctantly support the amendment.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey] for his support, and I agree with the gentleman. I do not
like doing an across-the-board cut either, but I agree also that when
we are squeezing out of everybody the very last, last drop of blood in
other programs because of this debt that is looming over our head that
we are all watching, I think it looks unconscionable to add more money
to all of these things without coming up with a threat analysis that
really drives it, and I think it is also very difficult to explain to
the people why spending more money than all the rest of the world is
spending on defense is still not enough.
Mr. Chairman, we have got to add more, and so I really hope that this
body thinks about this. I realize there is always a wish list, there is
always a wish list. I have never, never, never found an agency that did
not have a wish list, and, if we said to them, Is there anything you
need or are short of, they are a fool if they do not come forward with
a long list. It is the same with my kids; it is the same with everyone
I know. It is human nature.
But the issue is when the Joint Chiefs think it is adequate, and
everyone else, then I think that the gentleman is making a good point.
I am sorry to do an across-the-board. It is all I know how to do, but I
think the American people would say we do not have sacred cows in this
budget, and, if we do not pass this, we have got a 2-ton sacred cow
grazing in this budget that has been held harmless.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply say I agree with that, and I would
again point to the chart that I used on two other occasions today. The
red bars on this chart show what has happened to the Russian military
budget since 1989. The blue lines show what has happened to the
American military budget since 1989.
Mr. Chairman, we had almost a 70-percent reduction in the Russian
budget, very small reduction in ours. I think that indicates there is
ample room for the amendment of the gentlewoman to be accepted.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] will be
recognized for 3 minutes because the time for consideration of
amendments expires at 5:27, and it is presently 5:24.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Young].
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
California for yielding this time to me, and I want to make this one
last point:
This bill appropriates $2.2 billion less than this House authorized
on the defense authorization bill earlier this summer, $2.2 billion
less.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
California for yielding.
I would just like to say I cannot believe the discussion here. I
would like for our colleagues to tell the 1 million men and women in
this country who lost their jobs in the defense industry over the past
2 years that there are no cuts being made. I would like my colleagues
to tell them what they have said on the floor today, that we have not
been tough with defense spending.
And where do we get this dollar amount from? We are giving the
President all this new money. I was President Clinton's bottom-up
review who laid out the scenario for how much money we are going to
need over the next 5 years.
We have heard the chairman of the full committee mention the General
Accounting Office. It was the General Accounting Office who said that
we are $150 billion short just to meet the President's bottom-up
review, and the Congressional Budget Office said we are at least $60
billion short, and we are only increasing it by a very small amount. In
fact, all we are doing is stabilizing defense spending.
I would urge our colleagues to reject this amendment and to support
this very tough defense budget that I think has been crafted very
wisely by the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Let me just say there is $12 billion in backlog of real
property maintenance. There is a backlog in depot maintenance. We have
put it off for years. The military has put it off for what they think
are other priorities.
The across-the-board cut is the worst kind of a cut available to the
Members. The cuts were offered individually. The Members did not accept
those cuts. Some amendments were accepted, some were not, but the point
is an across-the-board cut is not the way to cut defense. We have
accepted across-the-board cuts, and I would strongly object to and ask
the Members to vote against a 3-percent cut across the board.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming what little time I have
left, the gentlewoman says that pay raises would not be affected, but,
if it is an across-the-board, there is one that we have bipartisan
support in trying to fix back the High-One problem that we have. In
that account we either affect the COLA, Elk Hills, or High One. Which
will it be? If we do a 3-percent cut, we either are going to cut the
COLA of military retirees or we are going to affect those few people
that have decided to get out recently.
I take a look at what our problems are right now across. We have got
ships that are not being repaired.
The gentlewoman in support of the base closures, we cannot give the
dollars for the base closures to reap the benefit of the dollars back
to DOD, because we do not have the dollars. That would be hurt.
I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Schroeder amendment
for a 3 percent cut in this defense appropriations bill. I want to talk
about budget priorities. I want to remind my colleagues that this
Congress really only has power over discretionary spending. That is
about 54 percent of the budget, and that 54 percent is divided equally,
50-50, between military and nonmilitary spending.
Mr. Chairman, we have all heard all this talk about how we are gong
to cut waste in this new Congress. We are going to balance the budget.
But we may be surprised to hear that all of the cuts, all of them, I
repeat, all the cuts, have come from nonmilitary spending. Did the
military budget get a cut? No, it did not. In fact, it got a huge
increase.
Now, poll after poll shows that the average American wants Pentagon
spending either kept the same or cut, but they do not want it
increased. In this bill before us today, national missile defense--the
true star wars--is actually increased 111 percent over last year's
level. And one theater missile defense program--Navy upper tier--is
increased almost 300 percent over last year. Mr. Chairman, I think this
is wrong and I would submit that the American people might think this
is a wrong use of their money.
Now, it is true that we have made enormous cuts. But I would like to
talk about what those cuts are, and keeping in mind that those cuts are
at the same time we are increasing Pentagon spending, while some of the
cuts have been direct attacks on our children and our country's future.
The Republicans have approved cuts that would deny Head Start to
180,000 children nationwide by the year 2002. In addition, Pell Grants
are being cut. Pell Grants help our young people get to college and
they will be denied to 360,000 students in 1996. In fact, 3,000
students in Oregon will not have a chance to go to college because of
these cuts.
They are also attacking the environment. Let me tell you some of the
cuts in the environment. All funding is eliminated for listing of
threatened and endangered species. These

[[Page H 8658]]
are species on which the fishing industry depends. We need support for
these endangered species, but we are cutting all the funding. There is
a 40-percent reduction in solar and renewable energy, a 33-percent
reduction in the EPA budget, including a $765 million cut in clean
water funding. There is a 17-percent cut in all of the EPA enforcement.
And what about cuts to seniors? We have cut $270 billion in Medicare
and eliminated the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This new
Congress has cut senior nutrition programs by $24 million. The older
workers' programs--$46 million in cuts. All at the same time that we
are increasing the Pentagon, we are cutting from children, from the
environment, and from seniors.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if cutting away at these programs is the
right priority. Is it the priority that we believe in in this country
to cut away at security protections, the security of good education,
safer streets, healthy children, and seniors, a safe and healthy
environment? I would say it is the wrong priority.
Shame--I think it is a shame--when we have such very skewed economics
priorities. I would say that they are not the priorities of my
constituents. Voting for the Schroeder amendment will go a little way
toward righting those priorities.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for consideration of amendments has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, July 31,
1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] will be postponed.
The Clerk will read the last two lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:

``This Act may be cited as the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1996''.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, July 31,
1995, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed, in the following order: Amendment No. 9
offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]; amendment No. 43
offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 93,
noes 325, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 643]

AYES--93

Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Clay
Clayton
Coble
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Coyne
Danner
DeFazio
Dellums
Duncan
Durbin
Eshoo
Evans
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Furse
Goodlatte
Green
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hilliard
Hinchey
Johnson (SD)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Luther
Markey
Martinez
McCarthy
McDermott
Meehan
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Poshard
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sanders
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Slaughter
Stark
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Torricelli
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Waters
Watt (NC)
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Yates
Zimmer

NOES--325

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mfume
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--16

Bishop
DeLauro
Dingell
Fazio
Gephardt
Maloney
McKinney
Moakley
Morella
Reynolds
Roberts
Serrano
Sisisky
Towns
Tucker
Waldholtz

{time} 1753

Mr. DOOLEY and Mr. MFUME changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. COOLEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Personal Explanation

Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, on amendment No. 16 offered by
Mr. Sanders, rollcall No. 643, I inadvertantly voted ``yes.'' I
intended to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that
this statement immediately follow the rollcall on this amendment.
amendment offered by mrs. schroeder

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs.
Schroeder] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page H 8659]]

The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 124,
noes 296, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 644]

AYES--124

Ackerman
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Danner
DeFazio
Dellums
Deutsch
Doggett
Duncan
Durbin
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gibbons
Green
Gutierrez
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kleczka
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Porter
Poshard
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NOES--296

Abercrombie
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (FL)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--14

Bishop
Dingell
Gephardt
Kaptur
Maloney
McKinney
Moakley
Morella
Reynolds
Roberts
Sisisky
Towns
Tucker
Waldholtz

{time} 1801

Mr. ENGEL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal
year 1996 demonstrates misguided priorities of the new majority in the
House. At the same time that billions of dollars are slated to be
slashed from education, environmental protection, housing assistance,
job training and other needed family programs, the Republican
leadership brings to the floor a Defense appropriations bill that
spends nearly 8 billion dollars more than the Pentagon requested for
the coming year 1996.
In fact, the Defense appropriations bill not only includes billions
in extra Pentagon funding, it adds money for weapons and programs that
top Defense officials have stated they do not want or need. For
example, the bill includes nearly half a billion dollars to continue
production of the B-2 stealth bomber beyond the 20 planes that have
already been authorized. That's a half a billion dollars for a plane
that appears to have significant technical problems, not the least of
which is its inability to distinguish rain from other solid obstacles
like mountains! The B-2 is a budget busting boondoggle that I hoped my
colleagues would have rejected by supporting the Kasich-Dellums-Obey
amendment to eliminate funding for additional Stealth bombers from the
bill.
This legislation includes $3.5 billion for ballistic missile
defense--$599 million more than the budget request--and it shifts the
priority toward national missile defense, the star wars program which
invites violation of the 1972 ABM Treaty. The bill provides $200
million more than the budget request for the F-22 fighter and an extra
$250 million for the F-15. A wide range of humanitarian, peacekeeping,
environmental, and disaster relief programs have been sacrificed in
order to pay for these added weapons procurement costs. In addition,
the bill eliminates the Technology Reinvestment Project and underfunds
the Nunn-Lugar denuclearization program in the former Soviet Union.
Time and again, this bill serves narrow special interests over the
interests of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, we face many difficult choices this year, but the
decision to oppose the Defense Appropriations bill is not one of them.
This legislation turns our national priorities upside down--spending
billions on star wars missile defense programs and stealth bombers the
Pentagon doesn't want at the same time that education, Medicare,
housing, and environmental protection programs are being decimated. We
need to get our priorities in order. I urge a no vote on the Defense
appropriations bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2126,
the Defense Appropriations Act of 1995. While I am aware of the current
fashion in the Congress to increase defense spending at the expense of
our domestic programs, I am also mindful of my duty as a Member of
Congress to act in the best interest of the people I represent and in
the best interest of the U.S. Constitution I have sworn to uphold. This
shortsighted and rushed legislation will not only try to resurrect cold
war programs that are unnecessary and wasteful, but will endanger the
delicate balance of domestic and defense spending.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 1995 that we are
considering here today is completely out of balance. This legislation
authorizes $7.8 billion more in funding than requested by the
administration and $2.5 billion more than current spending levels. H.R.
2126 seeks to isolate the United States by restricting America's role
in peacekeeping operations, and misguidedly redirects $3.5 billion to a
star wars missile defense system whose time passed with the end of the
cold war. This bill also appropriates $493 million more than requested
by the military for the B-2 Stealth bomber. H.R. 2126 impinges on the
President's constitutional authority by eliminating $65 million
requested by the administration for United Nations peacekeeping, and
$180 million less than requested for aid to the former Soviet Union.
It would be an abdication of congressional responsibility to support
this legislation at the

[[Page H 8660]]
expense of our most important efforts to improve the quality of life
for all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that our military is by far among the
world's best. This was demonstrated by our leadership of international
forces during the war in the gulf. Over the past 20 years, our military
has undergone a massive undertaking to build a defense infrastructure
which has allowed us to effectively provide an international show of
strength.
While I believe that we must maintain a strong military presence in
an era of low intensity global conflicts, I am an avid believer that a
healthy balance must be reached between domestic and defense spending.
The importance of striking this balance is especially true in light of
recent world events such as the end of the cold war. Because of these
changes in world politics, the United States is faced with an
unprecedented opportunity to redirect funds to relieve problems here at
home.
Contrary to the arguments that have been made by the supporters of
H.R. 2126, President Clinton has proposed a budget that reasonably
addresses the defense and domestic needs of this Nation. President
Clinton's fiscal year 1996 defense budget, which is strongly supported
by the Pentagon, has two key initiatives: enhancement of military
readiness, and improvement of quality of life for our men and women in
uniform and their families.
The ironic truth about H.R. 2126 is that it will actually weaken our
national defense. The bill before us today appropriates a staggering
$3.5 billion
for an unnecessary star wars ballistic missile defense system. Because
of this massive diversion of defense dollars to a star wars missile
defense system, more legitimate funding goals outlined in the
President's budget will be undermined. This provision of the bill will
also result in a clear violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile
[ABM] Treaty.

Mr. Chairman, I have always been in favor of a balanced approach to
our domestic and foreign affairs interests, and the Constitution's
separation of powers. H.R. 2126 is out of balance and undermines the
presidential power to shape our foreign policy. This legislation
greatly restricts the United States ability to participate in United
Nations multilateral peacekeeping operations. This congressional
restriction of presidential authority is contrary to the principle of
separation of powers and the clear language of the Constitution. The
Constitution permits the President as Commander in Chief of the U.S.
Armed Forces the power to place U.S. forces under the operational
control of other nations' military leaders for United Nations
operations.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for me to point out that under
the current congressional leadership, U.S. policy has taken a direction
that will adversely affect the essence of each and every one of our
lives. The majority party's plan ignores quality of human life
questions, and in order to finance additional military spending, we
have been expected time and time again to sacrifice already
substantially depleted health, housing, education, and employment
budgets.
As opposed to spending billions of dollars to immunize American
children, revitalize our urban centers, provide jobs to the jobless or
homes for the homeless, this bill seeks to divert funds from these
essential services to fund star wars and other unworkable initiatives.
H.R. 2126 is an essential part of the Republican strategy to force
through a series of bills that will gut the chances for many Americans
to live the American dream.
A review of the Republican plan to slash domestic discretionary
programs reveal that many programs serving the most needy will be cut.
One need only review the VA-HUD and Labor HHS appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1996 to see that it cuts education programs by 17 percent,
Head Start by 4 percent, the Environmental Protection Agency by 32
percent, and housing for the poor by 26 percent. This mis-direction of
funds would greatly harm the American people, the strength of our
Nation's defense and the future of our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to say that while the pursuit
of peace is a noble and necessary objective, it is no easy task--
especially when certain Members of Congress are determined to promote
antiquated notions left over from the cold war. This legislation
clearly reflects the new majority's desire to sacrifice the domestic
interests of the American people in pursuit of isolationism and star
wars. I urge my colleagues to uphold our Constitution, protect the
American people, and vote down this bill.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I was pleased that Chairman Young and
Ranking Member Murtha accepted my amendment reducing the account
initial spares and repair parts by $22 million.
This was a very reasonable reduction. In its fiscal year 1996
request, the Department of Defense asked for $118 million for spare
parts. Since then, the Air Force has told us that the requirement for
120 C-17's is only $96 million--a difference of $22 million.
The Milestone III Defense Acquisition Board [DAB] Integrated Airlift
Force Decision is planned for this November. Ever since the Deputy
Secretary of Defense put the C-17 program on probation in late 1993,
the Air Force has consistently told us that this DAB decision will
choose a number of C-17's somewhere between 40 and 120.
Giving the Air Force money for C-17 spares and repair parts for a
number of planes beyond 120 would be a waste of money. DOD has higher
priorities, and certainly the American taxpayers do. Frankly, in a
program that's experienced as many problems as the C-17 has, I wasn't
surprised to find additional waste such as this.
I would prefer that we only provide funding for spare parts for 40 C-
17's at this time. Buying spares now for 120 C-17's prejudges the DAB
decision. I have refrained from prejudging the DAB in my amendments to
both the defense authorization and the defense appropriation and I
believe it would be a more responsible approach if the C-17's
supporters do so as well.
If the November DAB decision is for fewer than 120 C-17's and I fully
expect it to be, I would expect the level of funding in this spare
parts account to be reduced commensurately.
My $22 million cut that was adopted by the House is also included in
the defense authorization approved by the Senate earlier this week. I
will work to ensure it remains in both the defense authorization and
appropriation conference bills.
The American taxpayers have already spent almost $18 billion on the
C-17 and only 21 have been delivered. The plane was designed to meet a
cold war threat that no longer exists and to accommodate battle plans
that have since changed. The C-17 is designed to land on short runways.
However, short runways are frequently not thick enough to support the
plane since its weight is distributed on too few tires. This
fundamental flaw was evident in the recently completed reliability,
maintainability, and availability evaluation when one runway that was
chosen for use during this test had to be rejected because of the
damage to the surface that would have been caused.
It is time to cut our losses and admit that the C-17 is simply too
expensive. Taxpayers would be interested to know that if we were to buy
planes we already know how to build such as 747's or C-5's instead of
C-17's, we would get more airlift sooner and save $15 billion. A recent
Wall Street Journal analysis gave this four-word assessment of 747's
compared to other transport planes: ``Highest capacity, lowest price.''
I believe that soon we will be forced to bow to economic reality and
stop buying this gold-plated cold war relic. In the meantime, my
amendment prevents us from throwing money at the plane that cannot be
used, even in scenarios proposed by its most optimistic cheerleaders.
I appreciate the foresight, leadership, and cooperation of the
leadership of the Appropriations National Security Subcommittee in
working with me to make this needed cut of $22 million.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit the following B-2
proclamation for the Record.
B-2 Proclamation--July 26, 1996

Whereas, we the National Aerospace and Defense Workforce
Coalition recognize that the present and future of America's
aerospace and defense industrial base depends on public and
private investment in new technologies, as well as education
and training programs geared toward the jobs of tomorrow;
Whereas, the aerospace industry has provided American
workers with economic and social mobility and whose income
has added to this country's tax base;
Whereas, growth in our nation's technological capabilities
rests on ensuring a sufficient and stable defense budget, as
well as an industrial climate that promotes a healthy
aerospace and defense industry;
Whereas, a declining defense budget has undermined our
industrial base as well as our manufacturing infrastructure;
Whereas, America still maintains superiority in stealth
technology that is so essential in preserving our national
security;
Whereas, the National Aerospace and Defense Workforce
Coalition is tired of public policy makers apologizing for
supporting programs that provide American jobs while
protecting our industrial base and providing for the common
defense;
Therefore, be it resolved that the preservation of
America's economic and national security ultimately rests on
our commitment to maintaining an industrial base in the
stealth arena. America cannot afford to lose the unique B-2
stealth production team. A low rate of continued production
of this aircraft is definitely in the national interest.
____

National Aerospace and Defense Workforce Coalition--July 1995

b-2 proclamation

Catherine J. Vezzetti, Executive Director.
Ed Olson, President, Southern California Professional
Engineering Association, Westminster, California.
Mike Hall, President, UAW Local 848, Grand Prairie, Texas.

[[Page H 8661]]

Harold J. Ammond, Executive Director, Association of
Scientists & Professional Engineering Personal, Mt. Laurel,
New Jersey.
Charles H. Bofferding III, Executive Director, Seattle
Professional Engineering, Employees Association, Seattle,
Washington.
Bob Duncan, Chairman, Council of Engineers & Scientists
Organizations, Westminster, California.
Wayne Blawat, Chairman--Technicians,
Steve Skattebo, Chairman Engineers.
Leon M. Rapant, Committeeman.
Al Zdrojewski, Labor/Management Coordinator, Local 92
International Federation of Professional & Technical
Engineers, Cudahy, Wisconsin.
Frank Souza, President, UAW Local 887, Paramount,
California.
Dale Herron, President, Engineers & Scientists Guild,
Palmadale, California.
Joseph Smarrella, Treasurer, United Steelworkers of
America, District 1, Local 1190, Steubenville, Ohio.
Paul Almelda, National President, International Federation
of Professional & Technical Engineers, Silver Spring,
Maryland.
Captain Duane E. Woerth, First Vice President, Air Line
Pilots Association, Washington, D.C.
Bill Boetger, IAM Business Rept, District Lodge 725, Area
2, Ontario, California.
Thelma Franklin, IAM President, Local 821, Ontario,
California.
Doug Burrell, President, UAW Local 1921 New Orleans,
Louisiana.
Ed Willis, President, UAW Local 647, Evendale, Ohio.
Frank Gyarmethy, President, UAW Local 1666, Kalamazoo,
Michigan.
Allen Holl, President, IAM & AW, LL 2020, Wichita, Kansas.
Harold Landry, Business Manager Local 3, International
Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Gary Eder, President, Salaried Employees Association,
Hanover, Maryland.
Tony Forte, President, UAW Local 1059, Eddystone,
Pennsylvania.
Gary Hawkins, President, UAW Local 128, Troy, Ohio.
Jeffrey D. Manska, President, Local 92, International
Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Cudshy,
Wisconsin.
Michael J. Gavin, President, Lodge 1509.
Frank Bunek, Committeeman, Blacksmith, Cudshy, Wisconsin.
Francis J. Owen, Committeeman, Local 663, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Cudshy, Wisconsin.
Anton Milewski, Vice President.
William Gregson, Committeeman, Local 140, International
Association of Machinists, Die Sinkers, Cudahy, Wisconsin.
Michael J. Yokofich, President, Local 1862.
Gerald Svicek, Chairman, Local 1862, International
Association of Machinists, Cudahy, Wisconsin.
Sandra L. Paradowski, Vice President, Local 85, Office of
Professional Employees International Union Cudahy, Wisconsin.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Department of the Army's breast cancer research program which was
included in this bill, the fiscal year 1996 Defense Appropriations Act.
Thanks to the leadership of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
Chairman Bill Young and his colleagues, H.R. 2126 provides $100 million
to continue that important work. I was pleased the subcommittee was
able to honor the request that we in the New York delegation made for
this vital research.
There is no question about the seriousness of this disease; 2.6
million women are living with breast cancer today. Thousands more will
be diagnosed with and will die from breast cancer this year. While we
are beginning to make progress in understanding the disease, we have
yet to learn how it is caused, how it is cured, and what means there
are for prevention. Our fight cannot stop now.
With the increase in the number of women in the military, the need to
address their health concerns, as well as those of women dependents of
military personnel, continues to grow.
The Department of the Army's program has proved to be both efficient
and effective, attracting more than 3,000 new proposals in the field of
breast cancer research since the allocation of funding in fiscal year
1992. As a result, 460 of the most innovative proposals have received
funding.
As there is still much research to be done, it is essential that this
program continue. On behalf of the 2.6 million women with breast
cancer, I thank the subcommittee for continued funding for breast
cancer research and encourage my colleagues to support this essential
program.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the amendment being offered today by my colleague, Representative Rosa
DeLauro. Her amendment would ensure that U.S. servicewomen and military
dependents stationed overseas have access to safe, quality health care
services.
An amendment being offered today by Congressman Bob Dornan would
prevent American servicewomen from exercising their legal right to an
abortion. This would single out women who serve in the military
overseas for a specific, unfair restriction by prohibiting overseas
Department of Defense military facilities from providing privately
funded abortions.
Mr. Chairman, American women have the right to obtain abortions in
this country. Shouldn't American military women who are serving this
country overseas have this same right? Especially if they pay for the
abortion with their own money? To establish such a ban is grossly
unfair and unjustifiable.
Without the DeLauro amendment, H.R. 2126 could drive women into
desperate situations in which they would have to seek abortions from
unsafe or unsanitary hospitals in foreign countries. Clearly, a
pregnant woman is the one and only person who knows what is best for
her, and she, in consultation with her family, doctor, and/or clergy,
is the one who should make decisions affecting her body, her health,
and her life.
I strongly support the DeLauro amendment and urge my colleagues to do
the same.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr.
LaHood] having assumed the chair, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2126)
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 205, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
An amendment striking sections 8021 and 8024 is considered as
adopted.
Pursuant to House Resolution 205, is a separate vote demanded on any
other amendment?
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the so-called
Schroeder amendment number 85.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report amendment on which a
separate vote has been demanded.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment: Page 94, after line 3, insert the following:
Sec. 8107. (a) Limitations on the Use of Federal Funds by
Contractors for Political Advocacy.--None of the funds made
available by this Act may be used by any Federal contractor
for an activity when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that the
activity is any of the following:
(1) Carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to
influence Federal, State, or local legislation or agency
action, including any of the following:
(A) Monetary or in-kind contributions, endorsements,
publicity, or similarly activity.
(B) Any attempt to influence any legislation or agency
action through an attempt to affect the opinions of the
general public or any segment thereof, including any
communication between the contractor and an employee of the
contractor to directly encourage such employee to urge
persons other than employees to engage in such an attempt.
(C) Any attempt to influence any legislation or agency
action through communication with any member or employee of a
legislative body or agency, or with any government official
or employee who may participate in the formulation of the
legislation or agency action, including any communication
between the contractor and an employee of the contractor to
directly encourage such employee to engage in such an attempt
or to urge persons other than employees to engage in such an
attempt.
(2) Participating or intervening in (including the
publishing or distributing of statements) any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for
public office, including monetary or in-kind contributions,
endorsements, publicity, or similar activity.
(3) Participating in any judicial litigation or agency
proceeding (including as an amicus curiae) in which agents or
instrumentalities of Federal, State, or local governments are
parties, other than litigation in which the contractor or
potential contractor is a defendant appearing in its own
behalf; is defending its tax-exempt status; or is challenging
a government decision or action directed specifically at the
powers, rights, or duties of that contractor or potential
contractor.
(4) Allocating, disbursing, or contributing any funds or
in-kind support to any individual, entity, or organization
whose expenditures for political advocacy for the previous
Federal fiscal year exceeded 15 percent of its total
expenditures for that Federal fiscal year.
(b) Limitations on Use of Federal Funds To Award
Contracts.--None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to award a contract when it is made known to the
Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such
funds that--

[[Page H 8662]]

(1) the expenditures of the potential contractor (other
than an individual person) for activities described in
subsection (a) for any one of the previous five Federal
fiscal years (excluding any fiscal year before 1996) exceeded
the sum of--
(A) the first $20,000,000 of the difference between the
potential contractor's total expenditures made in the fiscal
year and the total amount of Federal contracts and grants it
was awarded in that fiscal year, multiplied by .05; and
(B) the remainder of the difference calculated in
subparagraph (A), multiplied, by .01;
(2) the potential contractor has used funds from any
Federal contract to purchase or secure any goods or services
(including dues and membership fees) from any other
individual, entity, or organization whose expenditures for
activities described in subsection (a) for fiscal year 1995
exceeded 15 percent of its total expenditures for that
Federal fiscal year; or
(3) the potential contractor has used funds from any
Federal contract for a purpose (other than to purchase or
secure goods or services) that was not specifically permitted
by Congress in the law authorizing the contract.
(c) Exceptions.--The activities described in subsection (a)
do not include any activity when it is made known to the
Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such
funds that the activity is any of the following:
(1) Making available the results of nonpartisan analysis,
study, research, or debate.
(2) Providing technical advice or assistance (where such
advice would otherwise constitute the influencing of
legislation or agency action) to a government body or to a
committee or other subdivision thereof in response to a
written request by such body or subdivision, as the case may
be.
(3) Communications between a contractor and its employees
with respect to legislation, proposed legislation, agency
action, or proposed agency action of direct interest to the
contractor and such employees, other than communications
described in subparagraph (C).
(4) Any communication with a governmental official or
employee, other than--
(A) a communication with a member or employee of a
legislative body or agency (where such communication would
otherwise constitute the influencing of legislation or agency
action); or
(B) a communication the principal purpose of which is to
influence legislation or agency action.
(5) Official communication by employees of State or local
governments, or by organizations whose membership consists
exclusively of State or local governments.
Mr. SKAGGS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 238, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 645]

AYES--182

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blute
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Burr
Camp
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cremeans
Cubin
Danner
Dellums
Dickey
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
English
Ensign
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Furse
Ganske
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Heineman
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Hutchinson
Jacobs
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (FL)
Mink
Molinari
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Petri
Porter
Poshard
Pryce
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tate
Thornton
Thurman
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--238

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Browder
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cardin
Chambliss
Chapman
Chrysler
Clayton
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Graham
Green
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
LaHood
LaTourette
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lofgren
Lucas
Martinez
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Mica
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Quillen
Quinn
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Sabo
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
White
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wolf
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Bishop
DeFazio
Dingell
Maloney
McKinney
Moakley
Morella
Radanovich
Reynolds
Roberts
Sisisky
Towns
Tucker
Waldholtz
{time} 1824
Mr. YATES and Mr. TORRES changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HUTCHINSON, WELLER, FOX of Pennsylvania, HASTERT, BILBRAY,
CHRISTENSEN, WHITFIELD, GOSS, CREMEANS, ORTON, HILLEARY, HEINEMAN,
FRISA, GILLMOR, SALMON, BLUTE, LARGENT, and ENGLISH of Pennsylvania
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________