[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

       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; 
     $4,742,150,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1997.

            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

       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; 
     $13,110,335,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1997: Provided, That of the funds made 
     available in this paragraph, $50,000,000 shall be only for 
     development of reusable launch vehicle technologies.

        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.
  

                          ____________________