[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5424-H5431]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. I think that the U.S. public
wants us to cut where we can and spend wisely. It is their money. It is
taxpayer money, and they want us to spend it wisely.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about four security budgets that
are being cut at the same time we are increasing the CIA budget. These
four security budgets, I would suggest, are the budgets for law
enforcement, local law enforcement; budgets for protection for
children; for protection of seniors; and I would like to speak a little
bit about the Coast Guard, because in my district, the security threat
is on our streets. It is on the sea, where our fishermen go through
dangerous waters. It is for our children, who are in dangerous homes or
in schools that are dangerous. Then I also think our threat is for our
seniors' health care.
Mr. Chairman, our law enforcement officers in the district I
represent would be ecstatic, in fact they would be unbelieving, if
somebody said we are going to increase your budget by about 4 percent.
Their budgets are being cut. Yet, we have a problem of security on our
streets.
In the State of Oregon, we are extremely concerned, because last year
38 children died in Oregon because of neglect or abuse. One of the
reasons, it is my belief, that those children died, is that there was
not a place for them to go from dangerous homes. There were not enough
social workers to follow their care. Why not? Because we keep cutting
those kinds of budgets. We should be protecting our children. Our
children are the most important thing for us to protect.
Mr. Chairman, then our seniors. I want to talk a little bit about
their health care. It is vital that the health care of seniors be
protected, yet we see cuts being proposed, large cuts in Medicare,
because we do not have enough money.
I represent a district that has a coastal area. It has the most
dangerous place where the river comes out into the ocean. That bar is
perhaps the most dangerous in the world. We have a wonderful Coast
Guard station. Every day the Coast Guard protects our security, the
security of fishing women and men who cross that bar. They also do
tremendous work in drug interdiction. But guess what? Their budget has
been cut. That budget is a real security budget. It is a budget that
real men and women need.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard that the CIA budget has actually
decreased, but in fact if we look at the figures since 1980, true,
there has been a decrease since 1989, but if we look from 1980 to 1996,
we see an overall increase of 80 percent. Imagine, just imagine, an 80-
percent increase in education, health care, law enforcement.
I think it is our absolute duty here to spend the public's money
wisely. The most wise and commonsense way to spend it is to look at
every budget and figure out, are we giving them enough? Could we cut
something? But to increase this budget 3.9 percent this year does not
make common sense. The American people want common sense. They want us
to spend their money wisely. Let us hold it at last year's rate, and
let us have a commonsense approach to security.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will just point out to my colleagues that I am as
sympathetic as they are to the fact that we have reduced some of the
most important domestic programs in this country. In fact, I supported
both the Blue Dog budget and the Clinton budget, which I think in
overall budgetary terms were more balanced than the alternative which
was adopted by the House.
But I have to remind my good friends and colleagues who have
suggested that we can just take this money from defense and
intelligence and move it over to the domestic side; that,
unfortunately, is not the way the budget works here. If we make the
reductions in intelligence, the money is going to go over and be spent
on defense, because it is all within the same budgetary item.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot today about the NRO. This committee
has dealt effectively and supported John Deutch in his efforts to get
control over the NRO. We have significantly reduced the carryforward
funds and used it for other crucial defense priorities.
Having said that, we are in the midst of a very important
modernization of our signals and imagery collection systems. What we
are trying to do is to modernize so we will have fewer but more capable
systems and that they will ultimately save money, because we are able
to shut down equipment and facilities that will save us money over the
longer term and still give us a very capable system.
Again, I want to remind my colleagues, everybody gets up here today
and talks about the CIA. The CIA is just a small fraction of the
overall intelligence budget. I voted with my colleagues to make that
number known, the aggregate number known. The vast preponderance of
funds that we have in the intelligence budget are used to assist the
men and women who are serving us today very effectively in the military
all over the world. It is the ability to give them rapid intelligence
so they can go in and find a relocatable Scud launcher and destroy it
that will save American lives in the future.
In the gulf war we were vulnerable to that situation because we could
not find those relocatable Scud launchers. Now we have improved
intelligence capabilities that will allow us to do that and to target
them rapidly and to protect and save American lives.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues today to oppose the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I am glad to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], for whom I have enormous respect.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to
the gentleman, when he says if we make this cut it goes not to domestic
but to defense programs, that is so because the House voted it that
way. There is nothing in the law or Constitution that would require
that. We would have the option.
The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations on the House side has
just gone through the difficult process of doing the allocations of
funds among subcommittees. If we were to reduce that by $1.5 billion
plus, he could then take that out of the national security allocation
and give it to others. Indeed, interestingly, $1.5 billion is a figure
that, as I understand it, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations
Committee has said he needs to distribute to other domestic programs to
prevent real carnage, so this one amendment would ease that.
It is true if we reduce this authorization and made no other change,
they would gobble it up; but we have, by the same vote that we reduce
this authorization, the ability to reduce overall appropriations and
allow the reallocation. It is entirely within our decision.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
[[Page H5425]]
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,
noes 235, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 187]
AYES--192
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Camp
Campbell
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hoke
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stockman
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weller
Whitfield
Williams
Woolsey
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--235
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Martinez
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (FL)
Pombo
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Salmon
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stokes
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--6
Bliley
Cubin
Istook
Molinari
Scarborough
Torricelli
{time} 1545
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Torricelli for, with Mr. Scarborough against.
Messrs. PALLONE, WYNN, GUTKNECHT, and LoBIONDO changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs, FRELINGHUYSEN, TANNER, HOKE, and MARTINI changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mrs. schroeder
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs Schroeder: At the end of title I,
insert the following new section:
SEC. 105. LIMITATION ON AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR
THE NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act and the
amounts specified in the classified Schedule of
Authorizations referred to in section 102, the total amount
authorized to be appropriated by this Act for the National
Reconnaissance Office is the aggregate amount appropriated or
otherwise made available for the National Reconnaissance
Office for fiscal year 1996.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, this is one more attempt to try and cut
back just a little bit. The gentleman from Massachusetts' amendment was
just defeated. My amendment builds on his, and instead of cutting all
across the board or holding at the fiscal year 1996 level, it only cuts
and holds to the fiscal year 1996 level the funds that go to the
National Reconnaissance Agency. So it is just very narrowly targeted to
the NRO.
Let me tell you why. I want to read to all of you, and I think this
is very important. This is May 16, 1996. This is just recently, right?
They are talking about how Mr. John Nelson, who was appointed last
year as the Reconnaissance Office's top financial manager, said to the
press that there had been in Defense Week an agency that had gone a
total fundamental financial meltdown. He admitted that when he got into
his office and started looking at the accounts, he discovered that this
agency had put away $4 billion, and that it had not reported that
accurately to the Congress, to the Secretary of Defense, to the head of
the Intelligence Agency, or anyone else.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that if this agency, if we discovered
this last week about this agency, if they had been totally in our face,
in the Secretary of Defense's face, in the head of the CIA's face, and
everyone else, if Mr. Nelson, who is there now trying to get the books
in order, if all of that happened, which apparently it did, certainly
we should not give them an increase for next year. We are just going to
hold them level to what they got this year.
Does that not make sense? No one is taking these extra funds away. No
one has done any of that. We are only saying, ``OK, let's hold them to
that level that they have this year.''
This is not a cut, this is a freeze. Freeze them. And only freeze
that agency, that agency that we just heard had played all sorts of
games with us and had really not leveled.
Mr. Chairman, I could stand here and read all sorts of editorials
from newspapers across the country decrying the mismanagement. I
certainly salute John Nelson. He has been very candid. He has come
forward. He told us what he found, and that is wonderful. There have
been editorials in all sorts of newspapers across the country pointing
out that if any civilian agency in this government had come forward
and found out that there was such a fraud and they had played such a
game, this body would go out into orbit.
[[Page H5426]]
I cannot believe 1 week after all of this, 1 week after the rash of
different editorials and news on this, that we are going to give them
an increase for next year, when we know they did not even level with us
about the surplus they put away years before.
People will stand up and they will fight my amendment by saying
``Well, they didn't spend the money and they used it on other things,''
and so forth and so on.
Every bit of money that you put away, that is interest that we are
borrowing this money for. That is not how the game is supposed to be
run around here. It is really saying to Congress, you cannot touch us.
That kind of attitude is what makes everybody terribly angry. I
certainly hope people will vote for this amendment.
Let me frame it one more time: All this amendment does is say to the
one agency that has really admitted, its new fiscal officer has
admitted, they had a financial meltdown, it says they are not going to
get an increase in the next fiscal year.
Now, in my prior speech I talked about sacred cow disease, and I said
that sacred cow disease seems to be almost as prevalent as mad cow
disease is in Great Britain. When we come to defense and intelligence,
it makes no difference what we do, we cannot help ourselves. We
increase it. Some of the biggest budget hawks in the world that are out
there trying to fight that deficit, they just cannot stand it. They
cannot spend enough in this area.
But if we do not reward a deal with this kind of mismanagement, I
think we really look like we are not serious about this at all.
Mr. Chairman, I urge people to vote for this little, tiny, tiny
amendment, and send a message that we will not tolerate that kind of
mismanagement in the future.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is both fiscally and constitutionally
required. Fiscally, because it would give us at least some reduction in
the 5-percent increase that is otherwise being voted; but it is also
important as a matter of constitutional government.
The following facts are not in dispute: About a year ago, some
newspaper reports came out that the National Reconnaissance
Organization, the entity that is the subject of this amendment, had
squirreled away $1 billion. There was $1 billion we did not know they
had.
People said well, they had a bad accounting system. I reject the
notion that the people who know all, see all, are everywhere, from whom
the world has no secrets, did not know how much money they had. Of
course they did.
What they counted on was the laxity of this body's supervision. They
counted on being able to put that money away so they could in effect
supplement their own appropriation. These people have invented the new
parliamentary device, the autonomous supplemental appropriation. They
can supplement their own, by hiding the money as it goes along.
What this means, of course, is it turns out that some of the money we
voted for them was not necessary. They were able to accomplish certain
objectives or for other reasons they were not able to spend some money.
They did not turn it back. They did not come and say reprogram it. They
just kept it.
At first we were told there was $1 billion. Then we heard there was
$2 billion. Then the committee intervened. Riding to the rescue of
fiscal integrity came the Intelligence Oversight Committee, and they
adopted some rules to prevent this from happening. And it worked,
because thanks to them, we no longer had a $2 billion surplus hidden
away. We had a $4 billion surplus. Thanks to the effective oversight,
the committee said ``We took some steps a year ago.'' They took some
steps, and as a consequence of the steps, or perhaps irrelevant to the
steps, the $2 billion became $4 billion.
Now, as I suggested earlier, maybe what we should do is simply
withhold here, because we seem to have a great, surefire deficit
reducing device. First they found $1 billion. Then the $1 billion
became $2 billion. Then the $2 billion became $4 billion. I do not have
my calculator, but it seems to me in a very few years, if we let these
people go at the rate they are going, they would make a very
substantial reduction in the deficit. They are able to produce the
greatest surplus in a shorter period of time than anybody I have ever
seen. But they should not be able to do it without this body voting on
how to spend that money.
We were told they have been disciplined. Somebody was fired. But as
an entity, this is undeniable, they have benefited from that. They have
gotten more money to spend.
People said well, we are trying, Mr. Deutch is trying. I believe Mr.
Deutch is trying. I believe the committee was trying. But Mr. Deutch
has a broad set of responsibilities. The members of this committee have
very broad sets of responsibilities.
No, if you have got people who are specialists, particularly when
they are working in a technically sophisticated area where secrecy is
involved, no one will be able to out-account them, no one will be able
to stop this kind of game playing, except if we say to them, we
penalize you.
There is one way to put an end to this, and that is to pass the
gentlewoman's very thoughtful amendment so we say to these people there
is a penalty for this kind of game playing and avoidance of the rules,
and it is you will not get the full benefit from this.
There is no danger they will be hurting financially. An entity that
was able to squirrel away $4 billion while doing everything they were
supposed to do is hardly going to be hurt when they get their share of
a 5-percent increase and still have kept some of what they had.
None of it has gone back to the deficit. Let us at least in this
amendment give the American taxpayers some benefit from the $4 billion
in savings. I hope the gentlewoman from Colorado's amendment is
adopted.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in the discussions here, we have been talking about
this $4 billion. What we have done in the Congress is we have taken the
$4 billion away and we are using it for other things. It has been used
for Bosnia, it has been used for other defense priorities.
So if the money were still there, then maybe I could see some wisdom
in this amendment. The reality is, we are 5 percent below, for the NRO
budget this year, 5 percent below the Clinton budget request. We have
made some reductions in this particular area.
I would also say to my colleagues that we are trying in the NRO, we
have got a new financial officer who, John Deutch, a Democrat, Mr.
Clinton's DCI put in. He took out the leadership of the NRO. He took
out the Director and the Deputy Director. He put in Keith Hall, who is
doing a fine job.
So the amendment tries to punish someone who has already been
punished. They have had their carryforward account taken away, their
leadership has been replaced, a new financial manager has been put in
place.
John Deutch deserves support here. He would tell you if he were here
on the floor of the House today that we are in the midst of a
modernization effort to build new satellites that will allow us to
reduce the overall infrastructure of this program and reduce spending
in the future. But if he does not get the NRO money this year to make
those investments, then we are going to wind up spending more on
intelligence than we need and we are going to have less capable
systems.
So the DCI has taken the steps necessary to reform this. What we are
doing today is repudiating John Deutch by saying even though you did
that, Mr. Director, it was not enough. Now we are going to slap your
hand again and take away a very significant amount of money.
{time} 1600
I cannot say the numbers, but we are talking about a significant
amount of money. This is as big an amendment as we are talking about
today.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. First of all, if the gentleman is saying we are going
to have a very significant amount of money taken away if my amendment
[[Page H5427]]
passes and we freeze it at this year's level, what we are really
admitting is we are really giving that agency a huge increase but we
cannot say that money.
But second, my question is, Is the gentleman telling us the entire $4
billion that we just found and talked about in the press a week ago,
has that all been expended already?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentlewoman that that money has been taken back, in the
administration's budget request and we have used it for other purposes
in the Defense bill, which made it possible not to have to appropriate
new money.
So the problem has been addressed. And, again, the DCI has replaced
the leadership of the NRO, he has put in a financial manager and we now
have this thing under control. If there is additional money, and if it
is not all taken, we have set a certain number of months that they can
have carryover funds for use in each of these programs. If they go
above that, we will take that money away as well. So it is an ongoing
process.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further,
though, first of all, it is pretty astounding to me that they could
have gotten rid of this this fast when we just learned about it this
past week, learned of the magnitude of it.
The way I read this is that they said originally they thought there
were $2 billion in the carryover fund and they now find there is $4
billion. But there also was not supposed to be any.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentlewoman that this is not the first time we have known about this.
The members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the
Committee on Appropriations have known about this but we could not
disclose it. Somehow it got in the press, but decisions had already
been made to take a significant part of that money last year and in
this year's budget.
What they are saying is that the total amount that they now have
calculated was this. We knew that they were up there, and we took a lot
of the money away from them earlier because it was not needed. It was
not wasted. No waste, fraud or abuse. It was not used for anything
other than authorized purposes.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I
find it surprising, then, that the newly appointed fiscal officer, John
Nelson, would say there is a total financial meltdown, which is exactly
what he said to the press when this was all uncovered.
So if the new guy is saying there is a financial meltdown, I think
that is an admission that they had this $4 billion and a game was sort
of being played, and I find it astounding we would give them that big
an increase.
Mr. DICKS. I would say to the gentlewoman that we did exactly what I
think my colleague would have wanted us to do once we found out that
there was in fact a meltdown. He then told us what the amount of money
was that was in excess to their requirements and we took it away from
them.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. But the gentleman just said he spent it. The
gentleman indicated it was taken away and spoke somewhere else.
Mr. DICKS. It was spent for Bosnia and it was spent for other
legitimate ventures so we did not have to appropriate new money.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I
think what the American people would want us to do is not spend it and
invest it to help bring down the debt, and I would hope we would not
give them an increase.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of those interesting situations that one
finds themselves, I guess constrained. I and the members of the
committee were outraged at about this time last year when it was
discovered that there was a carryforward account that we were not aware
of; that the Director of Central Intelligence was not aware of.
We demanded that there be something done. As has been mentioned, the
two top officials at the NRO were relieved of their duty. A chief
financial officer was put into place, and he was tasked with coming up
with what was the amount. Originally, it was purported to be a billion,
a billion and a half. It was uncertain, because as the gentlewoman from
Colorado has pointed out, when the chief financial officer, Mr. Nelson,
publicly made his report last week, he talked about how egregious, and
I do not remember his exact words, but they were not kind in terms of
some of the financial management of the NRO.
We have tried to follow on the committee throughout the past several
months, as we have had constant updates on the investigation by the
chief financial officer of the NRO carryforward account. There were
substantial monies taken out in the appropriations process last year,
after it was discovered, from the carryforward account. The Director of
Central Intelligence as well took out an additional amount of that
money, all inclusive totaling in excess of billions of dollars, to use
in other functions that the administration wished to pursue.
We have continually asked and we have continually been updated on the
carryforward account. Mr. Nelson, rather than keeping it secret and not
discussing it, has a public interview in which he mentioned the $4
billion amount.
Now the accounting process stunk, but I think it is very important to
note that this was money that had been authorized and appropriated for
programs that were authorized by the Congress, for future program as
that are managed and run by the National Reconnaissance Office. They
were moneys that had not been expended because some of the programs had
been working better than had been anticipated.
These are programs that if the Congress wants to cancel, the Congress
should cancel, but it does not take away from the fact that these are
programs that at one time the Congress has approved to move forward
with.
Now, I also find it a little difficult in defending this because of
how outraged I was when I first became aware of the carryfoward
account. I also find it somewhat ironic that in the mark, and I would
invite Members to come up and look at what we have done in the section
for the NRO, we are 5 percent below what the administration requested
for the NRO. And some of us have been accused of micromanaging the NRO
accounts. My comment to that was if someone had been micromanaging for
several years we would not be in the problem we are in.
So on one side some of us are being criticized for micromanaging,
trying to straighten out the problem, and on the other side we are
being criticized for not doing enough. So I would encourage Members to
come up and look, and I wish I could tell Members what we are doing
with all of the programs. There has been no program left unscathed. We
have brought every program program that that organization runs, put it
on to the table, and we have been looking at delaying some of those
programs, we are looking at potentially canceling some of those
programs, and we are being strongly criticized by the agency, by the
administration, and by other Members of Congress.
But the purpose of doing that is to bring into bearing what it is the
gentlewoman is complaining about, and very rightly so. But I would urge
her to come up and look and talk to some of the Members on the other
side that have been complaining so hard about the fact that we are
putting them under a microscope. They are going to have to come up with
and defend and satisfy the committee that every one of the requests
that they have made in the President's request, which is above what we
have authorized is, in fact, justifiable.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Combest was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Colorado had asked me
to yield, and I am happy to yield to her.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding. Is the gentleman from Texas saying that the entire $4 billion
has been allocated somewhere else already?
Mr. COMBEST. No. First of all, there is not an entire $4 billion.
Virtually half of that amount was taken out last year.
[[Page H5428]]
Mrs. SCHROEDER. And so has the rest of it been expended this year?
Mr. COMBEST. Part of that is in the continuing carryforward account.
What we required last year in the authorization was that they lower
their carryforward account to no more than 1 month. They could not run
programs in a carryforward account, they could not keep those moneys
for more than 1 month.
But they have to manage that, Mrs. Schroeder. They have to move that.
They cannot take that amount of money and all of a sudden just throw it
away. We do not want them to do that, and they are managing that now.
So what we are requiring that they do is to take that money that was
originally authorized and appropriated for certain programs and expend
it on those programs and work that carryforward account down. They are
in that process now to where they have no more than 1 month's
carryforward at any time.
We have only become aware, as the gentlewoman mentioned, of the
amount of the money just in the past week to 10 days, because they have
continually, over this period of time, tried to do a very accurate
accounting in which they were going to tell us how much that was there
for. And it was not wasted or thrown away or squandered. It is not
being spent on programs that are not authorized. It is that they were
trying to work that out.
But last year, recognizing even at the time we were only talking in
the neighborhood of a billion to a billion and a half, we agreed that
that was not acceptable and that we were going to bring that under
scrutiny.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] has
again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Combest was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. COMBEST. That was to be brought under scrutiny and they were to
begin to manage that account. We then have, in this year's
authorization, as I have mentioned, and I would encourage the
gentlewoman to look, brought every program that organization runs under
scrutiny. Every one.
I wish the gentlewoman would look at what we are recommending on some
of those. I cannot go beyond that on the floor of the House.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to
yield, the next question I have, then, the gentleman is saying that if
my amendment passed, which would hold this agency at this year's
funding level, it would be a disaster because how much of an increase
are we giving the agency? Can we say that in open session, what the
percentage increase is?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, what we can say is it is 5 percent below the
Clinton budget request.
Mr. COMBEST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is
correct, this authorization bill is 5 percent below what the
administration requested.
Mr. DICKS. And if the gentleman will yield further, that is on the
NRO portion.
Mr. COMBEST. Yes; that is correct, on the NRO portion.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. But we cannot say how much of an increase it is over
what we are spending this year; is that correct?
Mr. COMBEST. I guess we might, but I am not for sure. I would have to
check to see what that is.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Could I ask the chairman further, if my amendment
were to pass, and there is still some money left in this carryforward
account, could they not use that this year to make up any critical
shortfall?
Mr. COMBEST. Those funds in the carryforward account are obligated
and were authorized and appropriated for specific purposes of which the
new authorizations that we are looking at now would not include.
Those are still going to have to be expended. They would have had to
have been expended at some point in time. And that is the point I was
making earlier, was that if the Congress wants to go back and cancel
some of those programs that have already been approved that this money
was there for, that is a totally different subject. But as long as
those are still to be moving forward in the new satellite architecture,
all those funds in the carryforward account at some point have to be
expended on those programs. And the moneys we are looking at now are
not going in the carryforward, they are going into additional
expenditures for those programs above what the carryforward accounts
accounted for.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I hope he
understands.
Mr. COMBEST. I do understand.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. To the average person this sounds absolutely nuts,
that we are giving an increase to an agency that we just learned had
this surplus.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I just want to say that we are actually cutting the NRO by
5 percent.
Mr. COMBEST. Reclaiming my time, I want to say to the gentlewoman
that I understand the frustration, I truly do understand it, and it
makes it seem so ridiculous for this to have happened, that we can
allow a bad accounting program like this to go unpunished. but I do not
know how we go back and punish. The only way to do that is to cut out
what I think are some very significant programs, and, hopefully, the
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency's efforts to try to deal
with this problem are what are bringing this all to fruition and to a
head.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] has
again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Combest was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Let me point out I think we have disciplined an agency
pretty well when we take away at least 50 percent immediately of the
carryover funds. As soon as we found them out, we took those away. The
Director appointed a special task force. He appointed a new financial
officer, fired the Director and the Deputy Director, and said we are
going to get this thing cleaned up and straightened out.
Now, the problem is that what we are doing here is coming in with a
punitive approach and saying even though we have done all those things
we have to do something more. I would argue that if both my colleagues
would come up, we could go through this program and show them that what
we are talking abut here are NRO satellites that are vitally important
to the military.
{time} 1615
It is the men and women that we have deployed all over this world who
are going to be denied important intelligence if we do not modernize
and improve our imagery and satellites. It is not some bureaucrats
whose hands we are slapping. It is not an accountant over at the NRO.
What we are doing is denying important intelligence to our military
people.
So I would urge my colleagues not to do this. This is not the right
way to go. It is too significant an amount of money. Mr. Deutch has
done the right things here. We have got to give him an opportunity to
clean up this mess, and he is doing it. But what we are doing here is
punishing him because we are undermining the architecture that he has
set up for the modernization of our satellites and that was also set up
by Mr. Woolsey, another Democrat and appointee of this administration.
They both would say that this would undermine and hurt the efforts to
improve our satellite capability.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, earlier today I introduced an amendment which would
reduce intelligence spending by 10 percent. It received, I believe, 115
votes. Just a few minutes ago the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] introduced an amendment that would freeze intelligence spending.
It received 193 votes.
My sincere hope is that we can receive another 20 votes to pass the
Schroeder amendment. I will tell my colleagues why. Month after month
and day after day, Members from both sides of the aisle come here on
the floor of the House, and they talk about the $5 trillion national
debt. They talk about the deficit, and they talk about
[[Page H5429]]
how important it is and how necessary it is to cut program after
program after program. My friend from Washington a moment ago talked
about his fear that we would be ``disciplining this agency.''
Mr. Chairman, by overspending on intelligence, by spending more money
than we need for the National Reconnaissance Office, an agency that has
misplaced, that has lost $4 billion of taxpayers' money, what we are
doing is disciplining hungry children in America. We are disciplining
families who would like Federal funding in order to send their kids to
college. We are disciplining senior citizens who get by on $7,000 or
$8,000 a year Social Security but do not have the help from the Federal
Government to purchase prescription drugs.
We are disciplining tens of millions of people who would like some
help from the Federal Government. But we are saying, not only can we
not afford it, we are going to cut back on what we are currently
providing because we think we need to spend this money on the
intelligence agencies, despite the end of the cold war.
Mr. Chairman, I know that many Members in this body are terribly
sincere, both sides of the aisle, terribly sincere about deficit
reduction. I know that they have been reluctant and with pain have made
cuts that they know are going to hurt millions of middle-class working
class, low-income families. I beseech those same Members who have made
those cuts that impact negatively on people who are hurting today to
have the courage to stand up and say that, when we have an agency that
has misplaced $4 billion, the very least we can do to protect our
credibility is to say to that agency that we are going to level fund
you.
The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] did not say we are
going to cut their funding in half. That is not what she said. She came
forward with a very conservative amendment. Level fund an agency that
has misplaced $4 billion. We need 20 votes more to finally say to the
American people that we are serious about deficit reduction. Please
support the Schroeder amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, in the armed services, quite often, for example, if you
have a budget and you have so much fuel allocated in that fiscal year,
that fiscal year's allocation that you have to burn it during that
period of time and quite often we would come to the end of the year
because we did not know how much we would use in Vietnam, in Somalia,
in Bosnia, and if you did not use the amount you thought, then you
would end up with a bunch of it toward the end of the year. so you
tried to manage it and prepare for a contingency.
Quite often we would have to fly up that fuel because we would not
get as much next year. We knew that we needed the fuel over a long
period of time for management for those contingencies also. We were
forced to burn it when it really was not used in the best way.
Intelligence has managed its dollars over a period of time looking to
when it sees.
Mr. Chairman, the intelligence community works in the antidrug
program. It works in anticrime, not only here but abroad, in DEA, in
CIA, in FBI. If you want to come after ATF, come to me and I will help
you. But if you take a look at the broad nature of where our
intelligence services go and how they help the security of this
country, not only aiding our military, I looked, during the bill, the
antiterrorist bill, I made a statement that my concern was that people
will not support our troops in the field through intelligence.
Even though the cold war is over, I believe that our need for
intelligence has actually increased. If you take a look, and the reason
that we were so opposed to what the President did in the arms shipment
by going through Iran and getting the Iranians involved in the Middle
East, if you take a look at the French and the British and the
different portions in Europe to where they increased on fundamental
terrorists of the Islamic groups actively engaged, there is an
increased need for intelligence there, just for the security of those
countries and the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues, in the World Trade Center
bombing, that was Islamic fundamentalists that were here also illegally
in this country. The need for intelligence in that has increased in
this country. We look at Ruby Ridge that was just on, and we look at
other areas of the country where that increase in intelligence is so
important to protect American citizens.
In areas of defense and areas of national security, in which these
forces, they are not used, I think, to waste and squander dollars, but
it is to help the American people in those areas and to help our troops
when they are engaged in combat.
If we take a look, for example, right now today in the Ural
Mountains, my friend from Washington is aware of this, within the Ural
Mountains, Russia today is building an underground first strike nuclear
capability as big as the entire area inside the Beltway. That is pretty
important to know for this country.
I remember in San Diego, when Iraq was trying to smuggle nuclear
triggers out of San Diego. It is pretty important to the American
citizens to have that kind of intelligence. If we try to micromanage
and cut back, yes, there are areas, I am sure there are areas in the
military, to the gentlewoman from Colorado, that, yes, things have been
spent too much.
Mr. Chairman, but that is the problem generally with any Federal
organization. That is why we want to send a lot of it to the States. We
think that is a better way to manage and balance the budget and to
eliminate the programs.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me. The gentleman is making a good point. We want good intelligence.
But we are talking here about just limiting this to a freeze to this
year's level, and this is for satellites.
A lot of the intelligence the gentleman is talking about, language
skills being able to have people on the ground understand Farsi,
understand all of those types of things, or dealing with intelligence
about whether you are talking about Ruby Ridge or something else, most
of that you are not picking up off satellites. Satellites do not
delineate a terrorist from a regular citizen. We are just targeting it
to satellites.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you
about the satellites. When I was at Navy Fighter Weapons School, we
were able to look down and read the serial numbers on the missiles on
the side of aircraft to determine what our real threat was. The
Russians have recently developed the AA-10, which is superior to our
AMRAAM. We need to know those kinds of things, that is taken off the
satellites.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that the Congress and the American
people are not left with a misimpression that Iranian arms only began
being shipped to the former Yugoslavian Republic during this
administration. Through the entire course of the Bush administration,
Iranian arms were going into the former Yugoslavian Republic at a time
when the Bush administration had no policy to deal with the slaughter
that was going on in Yugoslavia. It is particularly ironic that having
executed a policy that has at least for now stopped the fighting,
stopped the civilian slaughter and the genocide, that the other side
would criticize and try to make an issue of the President who finally
took a stand and actually concluded a policy that stopped the genocide.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct that one, I am sure, innocent
misimpression that was left by the previous speaker. The Iranians were
shipping arms into the former Yugoslavian Republic during the time of
the Bush administration.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's clarifying that
point. I would like to also say that we are not just talking about
stopping
[[Page H5430]]
these satellites. When you talk about the satellites, they are able to
gather information that gives our country a warning about terrorists
and various terrorist organizations and what they are doing and their
plans. So when we have things like the World Trade Center, I think it
is a sobering thought that terrorists are now able to do things like
this in the United States. That is another reason why in my judgment we
ought to protect this budget.
This budget is not only important to our military deployed abroad,
but it also gives us the ability to find these various terrorist
organizations and what their plans and intentions are, some of which
are not good for the United States.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, the point is we are only going after
this one part of the budget. This is the one agency that had the fiscal
meltdown. We are holding it level at this year's amount. Yes, of
course, we need satellites but we also need language skills, people on
the ground, all sorts of different kinds of information; and that is
not cut or held even by this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is just real important. I think that the
debate that would have gone on if the civilian agency had done this
would have been of an entirely different tenor on this floor. People
would have been jumping to the mike, demanding the head of the agency
be delivered down here and everything else. I am really amazed that all
the tap dancing that we have done around this. I think this is a simple
amendment, and I certainly hope it passes.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to me as I was watching the debate
and listening to the gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman from
Vermont talk about misplacement of $4 billion and fiscal meltdowns, I
wonder what those two colleagues of mine would say if we had the same
response to the mismanagement that has been shown by the inspector
general of the United States for the U.S. Department of Agriculture for
the Food and Consumer Services Agency.
The IG did an audit, as I am sure my colleagues know, showing that
$13.5 billion out of $37 billion of the food and consumer services
budget could not be found. Talk about mismanagement. Talk about
unaccountability. And I do not here anybody on the other side being
outraged by that kind of mismanagement or that kind of fiscal meltdown.
The point is, there is fiscal mismanagement at an agency that the
gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman from Vermont I think want
to ignore.
{time} 1630
An audit was done; they cannot prove that it was lost, but they
cannot prove that this was spent for the proper purpose. The I.G. said
there is no accounting of it, it cannot be proved what happened to the
money.
So that agency came before the Committee on Appropriations, on which
I serve, and said, ``Give us $4 billion more.''
So I think we have to put this all in perspective and realize that we
are talking about the national security interests of the United States,
and on that basis I think we have to be careful about saying, as my
colleagues know, about trying to punish agencies because that hand can
bite if we are not careful.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I will be equally as
outraged when we get to that item on the floor. I promise the
gentleman. I do not like misspent money anywhere. I think that is why
Americans are so angry with us, is that we come in and we become
apologists for it, and they think that we have all bought into the
Potomac fever syndrome when we do that.
The reason I do not have an amendment on the floor to deal with that
today is we do not have that bill on the floor today.
But I promise the gentleman, if there is one up there, I will not be
trying to reward that agency with a large increase over this year's
budget because they cannot find money from the last year, and that is
my whole point.
So I hope the gentleman joins with me today, and then we can both
stand here and be outraged when that one comes up, and any other budget
anywhere.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, I hope the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] will pay attention to what has happened in
the food and consumer services agency. That money goes to kids. It is
supposed to go to kids, and we are spending it on all other kinds of
things in that agency, but I do not hear the outrage.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, another point I would make on this is that
in a sense this money was never misspent at the NRO. Apparently there
was big money misspent over at the Agriculture Department on things
that were not supposed to be. The NRO money ultimately would have been
spent on programs that had been authorized and appropriated by the
Congress, and the irony of this is that we are going to have to restore
this money at some future date. We will have to do that because of the
amount of money that is required to build these very elaborate,
complicated intelligence system.
So we took the money away in the short term, but it is going to have
to be restored in the long term.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Let me just say in response to the gentleman from
Washington, who makes a very, very good point, this is a dangerous
world. We have limited resources. We cannot gamble on the intelligence
services of the United States of America, and I think, as my colleagues
know, we are talking a little bit about apples and oranges although the
concept that the gentlewoman from Colorado makes, or the point she
makes with regard to mismanagement, applies equally on the domestic
side, but we do not have the national security interests of the country
at stake.
So I think the point of the gentleman from Washington, my colleague
and friend, Mr. Dicks, is a very good one.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I mean I love this. These two gentlemen
from Washington are here saying, as my colleagues know, ``The best
defense is a good offense.''
Look, we cannot be outraged about the agriculture budget, because it
is not here today. If it is here today, we will offer an amendment,
and, yes, it is terribly wrong to take money from little kids, but it
is also terribly wrong to waste money here and to play the games that
were played, and I would hope the gentleman would join me in dealing
with this issue that we can do something about.
So something about what we can do something about, which is this
issue in front of us today, and vote for my amendment.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will just simply
close my portion of time in saying that this amendment should be
rejected. I fully support the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] and
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] in their position on this
bill and this amendment. We should move forward.
The CHAIRMAN. 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.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were ayes 137,
noes 292, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 188]
AYES--137
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Camp
[[Page H5431]]
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kleczka
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Porter
Poshard
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Riggs
Roemer
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Slaughter
Stark
Stenholm
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weller
Williams
Woolsey
NOES--292
Abercrombie
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stockman
Stokes
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--4
Bliley
Hoke
Molinari
Scarborough
{time} 1654
Mrs. ROUKEMA and Messrs. SCHUMER, WALSH, BENTSEN, and CUMMINGS
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. THURMAN and Messrs. RANGEL, DOGGETT, SHAYS, and FOX of
Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hobson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dickey, 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. 3259), to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the
Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, pursuant to
House Resolution 437, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by he Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________